Civ 5/Steam:Offline Mode Question

[civ_king]

From an outside perspective you are all behaving like trifling petulant children

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

[MaxCiv]

I just read the last few pages of arguments and all I want to do is banging my head against the wall.

It's clear to me that there is no way to reason logically with the hard core anti-steam crowd. No matter what arguments you use, in their eyes Steam = devil and their answer will always be "yes, but, what if..." followed by a series of worst case, dooms day scenarios to which nobody can give a answer of course.

[The_J]

Not the "what if"s are preventing me from using it.
The system itself is already something which i don't want to have.

[The_Coyote]

Originally Posted by MaxCiv

No matter what arguments you use, in their eyes Steam = devil and their answer will always be "yes, but ...

Nope steam isn´t evil or the personified devil, but this is not the point. (so you´re half right and half wrong) But it seem to me that only because someone doesn´t want something, people start to think this person must think it´s bad per se.

Nobody really wants you to stop using steam if you are satified with it. But i also don´t like it if someone starts telling me that i should have to use it (and if it´s only because i want to play civ5) or should shut up and also that i can´t have any justifiable reason / objection why i don´t want to use it.

But now here is the one big problem, because steam is fully integrated in the game and there is only one version available (as far we know), one side has a problem. I would say this problem exists because of a design choice made by Valve and the history of steam. They didn´t designed steam in a way so it can be used optional, it was written to be obligatory.

Heck i don´t even think steam is a bad tool, but for sure it´s also not perfect. I wouldn´t question that it has some nice feature for some. But nevertheless i have my reason for not wanting it.

But back to the discussion. Honestly nobody really knows the other posters here, nobody really knows the real reasons and the reason behind the objection / opinions. Nobody knows which priorities other poster have, nobody knows how the other poster really values the different parts of this decision problem. We only know that the decision problem causes different decision.

Imo there can´t be a discussion about the conclusion / decision posters made, because we don´t know the real reasons for them. There can only be a discussion (better would be presentation) of the different points (possible advantages / disadvantages), but already if someone starts to evaluate one of the points, this can´t be really discussed (but of course questioned in a civil way).

The point of the last 4 - 5 pages was quite simple:

• Nobody knows what happens if steam goes bankrupt or a similar major event happens.
• Nope: There is a 4-6 years old claim from a valve employee - from a now no longer available post, that in such a case there will be a offline patch
• But: There is also the statement in Steam SSA - no guarantee of continous service and the fact that the SSA annuls the above sentence
• Afterwards the opinion arises, that it´s naive to expect that firms cover situation like bankrupt (even if it´s a long time deal you have pay the "full price" right at the start) in their EULA - but it could be shown that some handle major events at least to a minor degree

But now we still don´t know what will happen in such a case for sure, also we still don´t know the probability of an event which could cause the trouble. We only know the range of possible events in this case (off line patch <-> loss of all steam games). Now it´s up to everybody to decide for him-/herself how to see and value this point. But i think, even an general agreement to a basic statement like: "it´s up to everybody to decide for him-/herself and nobody will be blamed for his/her decision" is atm impossible.

Nice twist of a thread: Steam offline mode questions -> what will happen if steam will go offline

[Sterf]

You know what, if steam goes bankrupt and you lose games I'll tape myself naked and awkwardly eating a shoe covered in kangaroo droppings whilst scrabbling my VISA number on a dried piece of woven together skin flakes I'd scrape of my flesh beforehand by violently rubbing a kitten's nails on it, dancing the cha-cha-cha throughout the ordeal. IF everyone stops talking about it, it's so annoying I think there's already blood dripping from my ears and my vision seems somewhat impaired since it all began too. THIS I PROMISE YOU.

[Greybriar]

Originally Posted by Sterf

You know what, if steam goes bankrupt and you lose games I'll tape myself naked and awkwardly eating a shoe covered in kangaroo droppings whilst scrabbling my VISA number on a dried piece of woven together skin flakes I'd scrape of my flesh beforehand by violently rubbing a kitten's nails on it, dancing the cha-cha-cha throughout the ordeal. IF everyone stops talking about it, it's so annoying I think there's already blood dripping from my ears and my vision seems somewhat impaired since it all began too. THIS I PROMISE YOU.

And what happens if some greedy company buys out Steam and changes its business model?

[Thyrwyn]

Originally Posted by Greybriar

And what happens if some greedy company buys out Steam and changes its business model?

Nothing. They would still have to honor their contractual obligations to the producers of the games they are distributing. Especially a game like Civ V which incorporates Steamworks.

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by Thyrwyn

Nothing. They would still have to honor their contractual obligations to the producers of the games they are distributing. Especially a game like Civ V which incorporates Steamworks.

The details of those contractual obligations are not publicly available though, are they? We can only guess what exactly fulfilling those contracts actually means.

[civ_king]

Originally Posted by Greybriar

And what happens if some greedy company buys out Steam and changes its business model?

legal commitments are legal commitments

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by civ_king

legal commitments are legal commitments

An example of something I'd like to know:
Is there a legal commitment anywhere that says Steam has to provide their service free of charge? Anyone can come along and tell me that this is an "extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario", that Valve may one day charge for the use of Steam, but unless it's in contract, I would have to suppose it's possible.

I suspect many Steam fans would feel betrayed if they ever had to pay for their steam service, but it is plausible. i.e. not outside the realm of possibility.

[paradigmx]

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

An example of something I'd like to know:
Is there a legal commitment anywhere that says Steam has to provide their service free of charge? Anyone can come along and tell me that this is an "extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario", that Valve may one day charge for the use of Steam, but unless it's in contract, I would have to suppose it's possible.

I suspect many Steam fans would feel betrayed if they ever had to pay for their steam service, but it is plausible. i.e. not outside the realm of possibility.

Trust me, with how much steam has become an integral part of the PC gaming community, contractual obligation or not, it would completely shatter the PC gaming world as a whole. There would be an army of angry nerdy gamers battering down the doors to Valve or whatever company bought steam if that ever happened.

Don't doubt it, it would come down to violence, you take away a gamer's games, and your left with a very angry gamer with more free time than he knows what to do with, and nothing to do to blow off that anger.

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by paradigmx

Trust me, with how much steam has become an integral part of the PC gaming community, contractual obligation or not, it would completely shatter the PC gaming world as a whole. There would be an army of angry nerdy gamers battering down the doors to Valve or whatever company bought steam if that ever happened.

Don't doubt it, it would come down to violence, you take away a gamer's games, and your left with a very angry gamer with more free time than he knows what to do with, and nothing to do to blow off that anger.

If you told that gamer he could spend $10 a month in order to use his games, I think he would eventually fold.

One only has to look at the effectiveness of games boycotts in general to see the strength of a gamer's resolve is not something to rely on. Eventually you would have gamers saying it's the industry standard and that it's perfectly acceptable. I mean, people pay a monthly subscription for a piece of crap game like WoW (Warning: opinion) and that is only a single game, so why would they object to a monthly subscription for a service that provides them so many cool features like Steam does?

The only reason Steam isn't free is that Valve gets a cut from the games they sell and it is primarily a marketing platform. If either or both of those two things were to become less significant for some reason, it wouldn't be out of the question that gamers would start having to pay for the service which in reality cannot be run for free.

[Commander Bello]

Originally Posted by paradigmx

Trust me, with how much steam has become an integral part of the PC gaming community, contractual obligation or not, it would completely shatter the PC gaming world as a whole. There would be an army of angry nerdy gamers battering down the doors to Valve or whatever company bought steam if that ever happened.

Trust me, there would be people who desperately would defend such a turn.
They would call you "paranoid" if you were talking about expected price increases and would point out that you have to adopt to "modern times".
They would tell you that this is the course, industry has taken, that the decision has been made and that there is no point in arguing against it.
They would point out that such a monthly charge would be beneficial for Steam, Valve, the developers and by that, for you.
They would tell you that most players are able and willing to pay such charges and that anyone not willing or able to do so just belongs to a negligible minority.

Proof: the various Steam-related threads here in this very forum.

[The_Coyote]

Originally Posted by Sterf

You know what, if steam goes bankrupt and you lose games

You know, quite unlikely event. First i would have to won games which require steam to be able to lose them throu a bankrupt. And btw, where i said i think a bankrupt and losing all games is a highly likely event. It´s a likely event - but also one of the extrems, but how likely nobody knows. Quite funny to see you again think you are able to know what i think (that you are abel to read my thoughts - this is something i would say it´s a highly unlikely scenario )

You know there are - beside active accounts - no real sell figures and buisness numbers available from Valve. Nobody outside of Valve really knows if they make profit or losings, also nobody knows if the owner of Valve will own steam "forever". But it seems that it´s assumed to be a fact that Valve makes profit and he will never sell Valve and also every other scenario is blasphemy.

btw:
still waiting
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=372

[Alki]

Steam charging me a monthly fee is not what I signed up to when I downloaded games from them. I'd assume a consumer class action would follow any such move by Valve.

The licensing agreement box I ticked when I purchased a game on Steam works both ways. Steam has a contract with me as much as I have a contract with them.

[Cpt. Commander]

Did u read the Contract u signed?

"12. AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT

Valve may amend this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion."

[Senethro]

Originally Posted by Commander Bello

Trust me, there would be people who desperately would defend such a turn.
They would call you "paranoid" if you were talking about expected price increases and would point out that you have to adopt to "modern times".
They would tell you that this is the course, industry has taken, that the decision has been made and that there is no point in arguing against it.
They would point out that such a monthly charge would be beneficial for Steam, Valve, the developers and by that, for you.
They would tell you that most players are able and willing to pay such charges and that anyone not willing or able to do so just belongs to a negligible minority.

Proof: the various Steam-related threads here in this very forum.

Nope, the difference between you and me is that you're hidebound and inflexible. When circumstances change it may very well be that Steam no longer serves my needs and I won't recommend it to other people.

[White Elk]

Its not all that unlikely that Steam could at some point become a publicly traded company. Gabe builds up the service, then sells it to make millions. If it goes public, it's the share holders who would dictate the business plan. A very different situation than the current privately owned one. Even in this current situation there are pressures that could conceivably cause Steam to recoup rising costs by adding fees for some services. MP hosting tops the list. In that scenario you'd buy a game and be able to play single player games; but to play multi-player, using Steams servers, you'd have to pay a small monthly fee. As Steam grows, their need for server space grows. As energy costs rise, Steams server costs rise exponentially. Its reasonable to wonder how Steam will profitably deal with this.

A scarier possibility, that is a very real concern on the minds of many... including respected tech gurus, some members of the US Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, is Net Neutrality. Look it up! It's important! Already the ISP comcast, has throttled network access to bit torrent sites. They justify this by saying that these services are bandwidth hogs that contribute to network congestion. They say they are doing their customers a service by unclogging some of this congestion by throttling access to the big bandwidth hogs. compost recently won their case against the FCC and there is currently nothing to stop them from throttling other bandwidth heavy services... services like Steam. And Steam is very much a bandwidth hog which could very well be targeted by ISP's who have over reached the ability of their infrastructure to handle this increasing traffic. They've already throttled popular bit torrent services. And they own monopolies over many regions broadband service. I can't say that angry gamers would impact comcasts decision to balcklist Steam as bandwidth hog in need of throttling.

Another possibility, and one that I personally may be experiencing, is that your ISP downgrades your service at peak times if you've been tagged as a consumer of bandwidth hogging services. Your ISP can currently slow your download speeds to compensate. I watch movies and TV exclusively online. I dropped compost cable entirely. This is a threat to my ISP's comblastit cable service. Netflix instant watch, Hulu, TV Network sites, PBS Online, YouTube, etc are my friends. There are two other users on this network, and they occasionally stream Netflix movies via the Roku device. From April 6th, 2010 the day the courts ruled in comcasts favor, to this day, our net connection is slower than dial-up speeds during peak times. Nearly every morning from around 4am PCT to sometime after 9am, the net is nearly unusable. I am experiencing this slow down right now. YouTube videos won't play. Previewing this post takes many minutes. Our computers, the Roku, router, and our incoming line are working fine. It is the signal from comcast which is faulty. The evidence points to our ISP downgrading our service during peak times. I copy/paste a post into notepad before submitting since the page often times out and I'd lose the post.

My best guess as to why comcast would be downgrading our connection, is that we use a bandwidth heavy service such as NetFlix. As congestion grows worse, cloud computing increases, and net TV grows more popular; ISP's infrastructure becomes increasingly inadequate to handle the demand. More and more sites will be added to the "slow this user" list if Net Neutrality is lost. This is just one of the reasons I do not want to buy a game that is married to net access. You may not put value into this concern, and you may not have concerns over Net Neutrality; but I and others do. And I do see this as being just one of many legitimate reasons for not wanting a gate keeper between and my games. When I lose the net, thats when I want to be playing my games the most. If I drop the net altogether, I want to be able to play my games. With no net, and with Steams current methods; I lose the game if I reformat my hard drive or upgrade to a new machine.

[civ_king]

Throttling torrents is acceptable because a fair amount of torrenting is illegal, slowing you down for Netflix and such is not acceptable though

[The_J]

You're not a fan of net neutrality, are you?
It's not that they slow down some of the traffic.
At the moment they can do it with every service, no matter for what it is.
At the end you'll have to pay more to use your already paid internet connection.
-> not acceptable at all.