To people who disliked Steam.

[Psyringe]

So this isn't termination on a whim, it's only if you violate the terms of the license agreement.

I think we were talking about the Steam license, not the Civ5 license (at least I was ). Losing the Steam license is actually worse than losing the Civ5 license since it blocks you from _all_ the games on your account. And of course the Steam license doesn't explicitly read "by whim" either, but the conditions are so vague that it basically amounts to it.

 

[jojorah]

Steam gives me time to talk and connect to friends, i like just for that

 

[bhavv]

Sorry but I still hate it.

I've had a few occasions where I had no internet signal, but I couldnt log in or play any of my games in offline mode because it didnt have my login details saved even though I have the remember me box checked all the time.

Also recently, steam is frequently and far too often locking up and crashing. My PC is in great condition and very high spec, and barely has any problems with anything else, but steam keeps on getting stuck with a loading cursor, turns a bit gray and stops responding on a very regular basis, making running games through it a chore.

It is nowhere near as great as all the Steam fans keep on claiming it to be, it is buggy with a broken offline mode and is a pain to have to use to run my games through.

I have absolutely zero interest in online play or chatting to other people who play games while I play any single player game. If I want to talk about the game, then I have plenty of forums available to do that on. I simply do ot ever want to have to connect to any third party app or the internet to have to play and enjoy a single player game, but obviously times are moving forward, and anyone like me is just being left behind and ignored.

Of course, I will now have to activate my flamebait shield because saying anything bad about the one and only most glorious and wonderful steam normally results in nothing but being attacked by a large mob of blindly devoted fanatics who regard steam to be the best thing ever invented throughout the history of mankind.

 

[Maniacal]

I've had a few occasions where I had no internet signal, but I couldnt log in or play any of my games in offline mode because it didnt have my login details saved even though I have the remember me box checked all the time.

You're supposed to UNcheck the box, not check it

Of course, I will now have to activate my flamebait shield because saying anything bad about the one and only most glorious and wonderful steam normally results in nothing but being attacked by a large mob of blindly devoted fanatics who regard steam to be the best thing ever invented throughout the history of mankind.

Don't worry, this isn't the Steam forums Sorry to read that you've had so many problems with Steam, I can imagine that must be incredibly frustrating that it keeps persisting, also makes me curious what it is, but this isn't tech support.

 

[m4gill4]

I both like and dislike Steam. It is convenient in many respects. I've used it for almost a decade now, however long it's been since it became mandatory for Counter-Strike.

I am vaguely troubled by the implications of Steam's control over my game library and the way they discourage offline play by making it inconvenient and somewhat convoluted to do so, but so far they have not violated my trust to my knowledge.

Similarly I am troubled by the Steam EULA in that my rights as a consumer are strictly defined and limited, while Valve's rights are not. Some argue that it is not in Valve's interest to be arbitrary and capricious in exercising their rights and that is of course correct, but I nonetheless find it troubling that in exchange for "hard" cash I receive a "soft" license whose validity depends entirely on the good faith of a large corporation.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Valve thought they could earn more profit by charging a monthly fee for Steam, they would do so. In fact if it were determined that it would in fact be more profitable, it would be dangerous for them not to do so (risking shareholder lawsuit).

That they haven't done so is proof only that it isn't currently a profitable move. But anyone here who thinks the suits on Valve's board don't salivate a bit at the possibility doesn't know American corporate culture at all. Again however, they haven't indicated any intention to do such a thing, and as long as it remains true that Steam users would desert the service in droves if they did, it won't happen. However my faith in the American consumer to stand up for themselves like that is often shaken....

All this having been said, I still use Steam, I've bought a couple games from them when they had a good deal, for example Pirates! It always works, never gave me any major problems. I do, however, prefer Direct2drive as a digital distribution medium because I feel that once the game is downloaded and activated, they stay off my PC and out of my hair, giving me at least the illusion of, and practical benefits of, full ownership.

 

[Maniacal]

In fact if it were determined that it would in fact be more profitable, it would be dangerous for them not to do so (risking shareholder lawsuit).

Valve is privately owned by its CEO Gabe Newell, so it doesn't have share holders.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why not ditch the publishers? Once digital distribution fully establishes itself, there will be no reason for them to exist. I say just have the developers self-publish online and let the publishers go out of business. They're more trouble than they're worth.

Same reason record companies still exist. What self-published musician has actually done well? Compare them to how many achieve success through having someone to publish and market them. Publishers have the same role.

Anyway, I had no opinion before, so I didn't vote. It would be nice if the interface to play offline was more convenient. I haven't really experienced many problems with Steam, so I can't complain.

 

[Smokeybear]

Still a software problem and not a hardware problem .
And i know that such stuff exists. It's somehow more evil than Steam...don't know exactly how this is possible, but it is.


Thanks for the hint, fixed the typos.

What i mean: If you buy something because you see it...what for a decission is it then? How do you think crappy games get sold? Because people buy them because they are seeing them and do not care about getting some infos. If you buy something without thinking, then you either have too much money or not enough willpower.
And that's a general problem, not only for games.

I was a hater. Back when Steam was first a glimmer, when Half-Life 2 was virginal and first stalked the earth. But I have to say, after it's been on my system for over 4 years now, for the most part, I never even notice it. I only play on one desktop, no travelling, so the net on/off stuff is irrelevant to me, ::shrug::. Windows updates and antivirus scans are far more noticeable than anything Steam ever does. And I barely notice them. As for impulse buying, I know my games, I know what I like, I read and study and follow the forums and get a wide range of opinions before I buy anything. But when Steam puts a great deal in front of my face for a game I've been putting off buying for no particularly good reason, for 50% or 75% off? Hehe, sold. I'm sure there are millions of other people just like me in the Steam universe, who aren't mindless sheep, who thoroughly enjoy the GREAT deals they often post up for us on a lot of very good games. Sure as hell never get anything like that elsewhere, ever. Thanks, Valve.

It's obvious to tell from your postings, and your sigs, etc., that you hate all DRM on principle- be it the kind of stuff that disables your CD player and can't be removed, or Steam. I respect that opinion, and in a perfect world, I'd be on the same bandwagon. But in reality, well, my reality at least... I've had no bad experiences with it at all, and have come to truly enjoy the seamless autopatching, game store downloads, and complete ease of use. And I've always respected Valve as a company, and never been done wrong by any of their products or services. If some form of DRM is going to be considered a mandatory necessity by most PC game developers, then I'll take Steam, I reckon.

 

[Smokeybear]

Skwink... dude... 0 votes. Sorry, man. No luv.

 

[snoochems]

I was converted to loving steam way before civ5. I did hate on it much like the hayers here are, but I soon realized how awesome it is, and that my concerns are baseless and in my own head.

But people are going to hate no matter, do just let them hate. At least it provides their own conscience a reason to keep pirating games because "oh noes, it forces me to have friends list!!1!!"

 

[Revoran]

I was converted to loving steam way before civ5. I did hate on it much like the hayers here are, but I soon realized how awesome it is, and that my concerns are baseless and in my own head.

But people are going to hate no matter, do just let them hate. At least it provides their own conscience a reason to keep pirating games because "oh noes, it forces me to have friends list!!1!!"

This is a very unintelligent response - there are many faults with Steam and i'm sick of people acting like fanboys with rose coloured glasses (like Steam is some kind of gift from God).

Yes Steam is very useful, yes they are partly responsible for a resurgence in the PC gaming industry - but there are still major flaws with Steam.

1. Steam requires you to have a good connection with a nice amount of bandwidth or else it's nearly impossible to play your games (due to Steam resetting any "do not update" option as soon as you come online). This means that if i'm using mobile internet with very limited bandwidth, I effectively have to start steam in offline mode, go online with my internet, then play my game (but only if i've made it available offline or else i'll have to log back on). But what's this?

2. Steam software / authentication / does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to combat piracy. Zip. Zilch. Nil. Every single Steam game is still cracked and uploaded to torrent websites on it's day of release. Every single one. And yet they still force this crap on us which is hell unless you have an always on Broadband connection.

3. In relation to number 1 - What if I have satellite internet and there is a storm? What If I have mobile internet? What if I have limited bandwidth yet can still be online all the time? Sorry looks like I can either choose to have Steam use my expensive bandwidth without my consent to update games, or stop the games updating and then play th- oh wait? What's this? I can't play a game until it's finished it's 500MB update that's gonna cost me $5?

Why am I using Steam with such limitations? Some games REQUIRE STEAM. Civ V among them.

Which brings me to my final point:

4. They are MY GAMES. I should be able to play them WHENEVER I want after only registering them online once. That's it.

I now have a good connection (broadband/ASDL with cheap bandwidth) and as such steam causes me almost no problems and I can take advantage of it's useful features. But God help anyone who doesn't.

 

[turboraton]

1. Steam requires you to have a good connection with a nice amount of bandwidth or else it's nearly impossible to play your games (due to Steam resetting any "do not update" option as soon as you come online). This means that if i'm using mobile internet with very limited bandwidth, I effectively have to start steam in offline mode, go online with my internet, then play my game (but only if i've made it available offline or else i'll have to log back on). But what's this?

3. In relation to number 1 - What if I have satellite internet and there is a storm? What If I have mobile internet? What if I have limited bandwidth yet can still be online all the time? Sorry looks like I can either choose to have Steam use my expensive bandwidth without my consent to update games, or stop the games updating and then play th- oh wait? What's this? I can't play a game until it's finished it's 500MB update that's gonna cost me $5?

Hello there, I'm the Peruvian member who is STILL searching for the Quechua Transcriptions of Pachacuti. I'd also like to point that Peru is FAMOUS for having one of the worst i-net providers on the whole world and still, we play FPS/RTS and trust me on this. CivWorld on Facebook takes more bandwith than running CiV.

Your second point is hilarious. For instance, If I'm mountain-hiking on the Andes the last thing I'd like to do is to, you know, do a quick log-in to finish my CiV game! And if there is a storm, tornado, earthquake or another natural disaster the LAST thing I wanna do is yell: "Wait for me, I'm backing up my games!"

PS: I'm really sorry for being late on the transcriptions

 

[Revoran]

Hello there, I'm the Peruvian member who is STILL searching for the Quechua Transcriptions of Pachacuti. I'd also like to point that Peru is FAMOUS for having one of the worst i-net providers on the whole world and still, we play FPS/RTS and trust me on this. CivWorld on Facebook takes more bandwith than running CiV.

Your second point is hilarious. For instance, If I'm mountain-hiking on the Andes the last thing I'd like to do is to, you know, do a quick log-in to finish my CiV game! And if there is a storm, tornado, earthquake or another natural disaster the LAST thing I wanna do is yell: "Wait for me, I'm backing up my games!"

PS: I'm really sorry for being late on the transcriptions

You completely missed my point. CiV doesn't take much bandwidth - Updating it potentially does. Or downloading DLC (but not really applicable as this is optional whereas updates are automatic and the "don't update" gets reset to auto update as soon as you decide to do some low-bandwidth browsing and then Steam opens).

At any rate my experience that led me to this was with Dawn of War II and a 300MB update that had to be finished before I was allowed to play the game by Steam. As I had very limited bandwidth at the time it ended up costing me like another $10 for that 300MB.

There are places in the world which can only get Satellite, and Satellite / Mobile Broadband users are the main ones who suffer here (particularly the latter as they have very low bandwidth amounts for the price).

Not sure why you're apologising to me about the transcriptions - I really only read that thread once. Were you addressing the forum in general? In which case I guess it's polite of your but not really necessary as it's not the end of the world if some random guy (to the rest of us) on the internet can't get transcriptions.

I'm not saying Steam is evil and the spawn of Satan - i'm just saying that it has it's flaws and isn't entirely the magical solution to all PC gaming that some people make it out to be.

Let alone the day a freak earthquake+tsunami hits the Steam servers or whatever and we all lose our games.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Some of the recent responses here have been borderline at best. Please ensure that you are not being antagonistic or hostile. You are welcome to disagree with others, but make sure you are respectfully disagreeing. Derision of an opposing argument (in the manner of 'people x have stupid reasons for thinking what they think') is considered trolling. It certainly isn't conducive to productive discussion. Also, please keep in mind Moss' warning from earlier...

Moderator Action: Preemptive warning. Steam discussions have been contentious in the past, please keep this one civil. Remember, you are discussing Steam and the arguments for and against, and what you think of it, NOT other posters (outside of refuting or expanding on the points they make). Disagree, but disagree in a way that doesn't make things personal.

 

[Vladesch]

I've got some great games at bargain prices.
It's great as a game store.

As for civ5, I guess I'd sooner be able to run without it, but if it's a choice between steam and activating with DRM, then it's steam every time. I don't really use any of the chat functions in game since I don't have any friends, so meh. I can see a lot of others liking the in game chat though.

Personally I prefer voice chat.

 

[deanej]

Because the problem of developers going out of business is that the problem of you "losing" your purchase is significantly higher. There's no way you are going to buy some game from an independent group.

However having Steam behind it is exactly what we need. 2-3 million concurrent users at any given time is not going away anytime soon.

What on Earth did we do before the era of big corporate conglomerates?
Also, developer =/= publisher.

Same reason record companies still exist. What self-published musician has actually done well? Compare them to how many achieve success through having someone to publish and market them. Publishers have the same role.

If your sole motivation for content creation any job is to make lots of money, then you need to find something else to do.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Actually, there's no reason to believe that is their sole motivation (both record companies and publishers). There's just a recognition that, regardless of goals in promoting creative work, if the company doesn't make money, they'll fail and so will anyone who relies on them to promote and publish their work.

Still, my entire point was that it isn't realistic to get rid of publishers just like it isn't realistic to get rid of record companies.

 

[deanej]

Actually, there's no reason to believe that is their sole motivation (both record companies and publishers). There's just a recognition that, regardless of goals in promoting creative work, if the company doesn't make money, they'll fail and so will anyone who relies on them to promote and publish their work.

Still, my entire point was that it isn't realistic to get rid of publishers just like it isn't realistic to get rid of record companies.

I wasn't talking about record companies or publishers with that last post. I was talking about the ARTISTS, the CONTENT CREATORS. The record companies/publishers don't create content - they sell content created by others and keep over 90% of the profit.

Once brick and mortar distribution goes by the wayside, there will be very little overhead to self-publishing and advertising (assuming that net neutrality isn't killed). Given that today the idea is to re-release similar games over and over again with character names and some plot details changed and hyping the graphics more and more, it will turn the system on its head, but that's exactly the point.

If you actually create value, there's no reason you can't make a decent amount self-publishing.

 

[bryanw1995]

That's good for you, but take a gander at this:

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-AGCB-2555

According to my experience and Steam support, you essentially have to pre-prep your game to play it offline. If you happen to forget to do so before you go away from net range, you're up the creek.

Unless they've made recent changes, this is still a fact of steam:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/26829427

As stated there "There is currently no way to play official steam games without internet. And most probably there won't be in a future.. You have to watch weather forecasts, forsee the geological disruptions, watch closely constrution yards in area where are cables/signal to your provider, also check how your provider is routing you to the internet so you can turn into and offline mode in advance.."

This is not correct. I have very spotty internet service. Last week it was down for almost an entire day. In fact, it went out when I was in the middle of a civ game. I had no problems playing either before or afterwards, the only issue at all was a popup the first time I started a game without internet. I had to click "ok" and that was it.

Hmm it worked always fine for me. I'm not using wireless network though. It seems like to me there's a bug when internet connection is practically lost but there's a tiny bits of traffic flowing (most likely on wireless network) and steam tries hard to connect through it. Just my guess though. It seems PieceOfMind's solution of disabling network adapter works.

I'm on a wireless network.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wasn't talking about record companies or publishers with that last post. I was talking about the ARTISTS, the CONTENT CREATORS. The record companies/publishers don't create content - they sell content created by others and keep over 90% of the profit.

Once brick and mortar distribution goes by the wayside, there will be very little overhead to self-publishing and advertising (assuming that net neutrality isn't killed). Given that today the idea is to re-release similar games over and over again with character names and some plot details changed and hyping the graphics more and more, it will turn the system on its head, but that's exactly the point.

If you actually create value, there's no reason you can't make a decent amount self-publishing.

There still is issues about publicity. People have been self-publishing music for 10 years. With online music distribution, it's quite possible to have no overhead. What artist in the last ten years has managed to reach a large audience through self-publishing? It's not about making money, it's about reaching enough people. That's why I don't think video game self-publishing is realistic either, especially with the actual legitimate investment costs required to have top of the line game development software (art programs alone can costs thousands for professional versions). Certainly, even if you didn't enter to make lots of money (and they don't), it's reasonable to say they entered to at least be able to live off their work and not lose thousands.