To people who disliked Steam.

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: I'm re-opening the thread (locked to clean up), but consider this a final warning. If you cannot post in a manner conducive to civil discussion, then do not post at all.

 

[Psyringe]

Steam is a bit different story though. Its business model is similar to iTunes/AppStore than those of the examples you presented. I doubt it will lose the competition among digital distribution shop because there are countless people who already purchased several to tens of games on Steam. They will not change the platform easily like how you would simply buy from different game developers, change web browser, use different web site etc. Also even if the company experiences a huge random inner problem that would drive them unable to support Steam, I'm very sure someone else would purchase the license and continue the support as there's a huge money/potential on it.

I agree that Steam's business model gives it an advantage over the examples that I listed. The risk is still there though. And for me, as a potential customer, the rights that the current Steam license grants me simply don't outweigh this risk.

An example (there are probably better ones, I'm just pulling this out of my head as I type): A couple of the biggest publishers could get together and decide that they can maximize their profits by establishing their own online distribution service, "Vapor". To "help" people over the threshold of signing up to yet another service, all their future games will be Vapor-only, and they also give out good deals to 3rd-party publishers as long as the games remain Vapor-exclusive. Since the founders of "Vapor" know that Steam has the advantage of an already existing customer and publisher base, they calculate with a period of deficit spending in which the main goal is to eat up as much of Steam's market share as possible. As a result, Vapor becomes more attractive for publishers and customers as Steam. Supporting their strategy, the owners of Vapor also attack Steam's policy of profiling and storing user data, which leads to lengthy lawsuits and some penalties for Steam in the European Union.

To defend against the new competitor, Steam plans to implement some innovative features into new games which unfortunately mostly fail. Steam now faces the problem that people keep using their old games on Steam (thereby causing maintenance costs and expenses), but rarely buy new ones, and publishers are also switching over to Vapor. After a while, Steam is piling up a bigger deficit than it can handle.

Steam ends up being sold to another company which, as a first step, introduces a monthly fee for Steam subscribers. Accounts who fail to pay the fee are deleted. This change is added to the Steam license. According to the license, this gives the customers the choice to either accept the change, or reject it and leave Steam. If you haven't logged into your Steam account for a while, tough luck. Alternatively, Steam's new owner might also come up with a somewhat sneakier way to reduce the expenses caused by people playing old games: They say that Steam will be "innovated" and switch to "Steam 2.0", which has some more features, but "unfortunately" support for many older games "which no one uses anyway" will have to be stopped. To sweeten the deal, customers with more than 10 of these older games can get a new game for free if they claim it within 30 days.

Now, you can say that the above scenario may be "unlikely". I'm not so sure about that, but it'd be a valid opinion, and time would have to tell who's right. What you can't say (imho) is that the above scenario is impossible. All these things have already happened in the world of business, and there's no reason why they shouldn't happen again. Steam's defenses and future plans may be strong enough to prevent it or they might not, we can't tell until it happens. In any case, the _most_ unlikely thing in the scenario above is probably the name that I gave Steam's hypothetical competitor.

Psy-

Point well taken, but Andoo makes an appropriate counter-point.

Plus, if you are worried about Steam shutting down, you can always backup your games onto your hard drive, then play in offline-mode.

I don't think they let you play the games indefinitely, I'm pretty sure Civ5 would demand a re-validation at least after a hardware change. If there was a possibility to make such a reusable offline "time capsule" of a game's installation, then indeed some of my concerns would be moot, as people like me could simply make offline backups of their games from time to time. It'd be a bit of a hassle (since the backup would have to be repeated after each patch), but doable. But I don't think Steam allows that to the extent you suggest (it's a bit of a catch-22, they can't allow such backups to be installed on computers with differing hardware without another validation, as it would undermine their viability as a DRM method).

edit: Hell, if Steam goes under and the EULA becomes a moot point, all of your backed-up games can probably be legally hacked into a working state much like they are currently illegally hacked. Just get Nemo and I to google it for you.

I don't think that'd be legal (at least not in my country). But to be honest, before I convince myself that I could use potentially illegal methods to overcome the disadvantages of a service, I'd rather vote with my wallet and not use the service in the first place.

 

[snoochems]

...

Just lol.

Yeah, blame steam when you're trying to play online when you're using a mobile phone as your internet connection. Well, I assume you're trying to play online, otherwise you would just put Steam into offline mode.

 

[Sock Bramson]

Well, it seems like the argument has come down to the potential for something to go wrong because of Steam, rather than something actually going wrong. If Steam detractors don't want to risk using the program because they can envision technically possible (in my mind improbable, but I must admit not impossible) problems in the future, I suppose there's no convincing them otherwise. In the meantime, I will continue to use Steam an enjoy it's user-friendly design/sales, and I will at least express my opinion on the matter with the hope that I can dissuade people from worrying about (what is right now, at least) nothing.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other venues to acquire awesome games through. It's just too bad that you guys can't play TF2 or Portal 2. Of course, you could always compromise: keep hating Steam, but use it temporarily to wring as much joy as possible out of the aforementioned titles and any of the other Steam exclusives that are definitely worth the lingering fear of getting burned by Valve.

 

[Revoran]

Just lol.

Yeah, blame steam when you're trying to play online when you're using a mobile phone as your internet connection. Well, I assume you're trying to play online, otherwise you would just put Steam into offline mode.

You clearly paid no attention to anything I said. Next time try and actually read what people type.

Moderator Action: Address the post, not the poster. There has been ample warning in the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I wasn't using a mobile phone, I was using a Dongle (USB wireless HDSPA device - Google it). And my point is if it wasn't for Steam's stupid requirements, I would have been perfectly capable of playing my games unhindered even with a <snip> HDSPA device. Ie: As bad as mobile internet is compared to landline ADSL / Cable / whatever, it wasn't the problem. There are technical reasons limiting HDSPA whereas there are no technical reasons forcing Steam to have the requirements it does/did - only Valve's own decisions.

I wasn't trying to play online - I was complaining about the updating.

At any rate I even voted that I liked Steam on the poll because overall I like Steam. My point is just that it's not perfect.

Moderator Action: Also, please watch your language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Senethro]

Oh, and be careful of what you say here to make sure they don't disable your Civ 5 steam account so you can't EVER play your single player game again for blasphemy against steam. It's been done before many times to others - no one here is exempt.

I still want to know more about this right here. This is a concerning thing that I'm surprised people aren't desperate to know more about.

 

[Psyringe]

Well, it seems like the argument has come down to the potential for something to go wrong because of Steam, rather than something actually going wrong. If Steam detractors don't want to risk using the program because they can envision technically possible (in my mind improbable, but I must admit not impossible) problems in the future, I suppose there's no convincing them otherwise. In the meantime, I will continue to use Steam an enjoy it's user-friendly design/sales, and I will at least express my opinion on the matter with the hope that I can dissuade people from worrying about (what is right now, at least) nothing.

Well, I'd say that the loss of customer rights _is_ something that's actually going wrong right now, and there are people who claim that Steam is already abusing them, though the latter has never been my claim. I'm concerned about future implications of the current loss of customer rights, so I guess your second sentence described my position correctly, from your point of view.

You're correct in assuming that you're unlikely to be able to convince me - to do that you'd need to prove that the risks I mentioned don't exist, and I don't think that's possible to do. On the other hand, since I (hopefully ) clearly state the reasons why I currently prefer to stay clear of Steam, you can also see which changes in Steam's license would make me change my mind. For example, if the Steam license included a warranty that they'll actually remove the Steam requirement from their games should they cease to operate, then one of my main gripes would be gone. Likewise if the license gave me any option to keep the games I bought even if I don't agree with changes in Steam's service in the future (currently, the license grants Steam the freedom to change its service in any respect, and it also explicitly states that my only way to disagree with any future changes is to leave Steam, i.e. give up anything I bought).

It's not that Steam couldn't give its users more rights - they just see that they don't have to. There currently isn't any sufficiently big competitor that would grant its users substantially more rights, and most users don't seem to care much about those things anyway. (The latter will, according to experience, change quickly _if_ they get burned, but then it'll be too late and they'll probably end up trying to inform the next generation of the importance of customer rights, possibly as unsuccessfully as I am. ). In any case, Steam doesn't reduce customer rights because they are evil, they do so because it maximizes their profits and minimizes their risks, and because nobody stops them. In short, they are acting like 99.9% of other businesses would in their situation. And I, as a customer, choose to do what I do when a company takes rights away from me that I deem important - I choose not to buy their product.

Switching to another post:

I still want to know more about this right here. This is a concerning thing that I'm surprised people aren't desperate to know more about.

I don't know what you want to know about it that a Google search (as recommended by the poster you quoted) wouldn't reveal. Personally I don't think that discussion of this particular subject is very useful. There are people who believe that Steam already bans accounts without sufficient justification, and there are people who believe that every such report is either a lie or that the bans are in fact always justified. The discussion then usually degrades into both camps accusing the other of lying.

What _can_ be said is that Steam's current license actually allows them bans that many customers would deem unjustified or at least too harsh. Whether or not they are doing it right now - they do explicitly reserve the right to block you out of the games you bought, and (as you can see by many responses in this thread) for some people, that's too much of a risk already.

 

[Senethro]

I don't know what you want to know about it that a Google search (as recommended by the poster you quoted) wouldn't reveal. Personally I don't think that discussion of this particular subject is very useful. There are people who believe that Steam already bans accounts without sufficient justification, and there are people who believe that every such report is either a lie or that the bans are in fact always justified. The discussion then usually degrades into both camps accusing the other of lying.

What _can_ be said is that Steam's current license actually allows them bans that many customers would deem unjustified or at least too harsh. Whether or not they are doing it right now - they do explicitly reserve the right to block you out of the games you bought, and (as you can see by many responses in this thread) for some people, that's too much of a risk already.

Telling someone to go google search is a lazy cop out. If you have a point to make, you shouldn't expect the other guy to go do your research for you.

Naw, but this is an actual thing y'see. If one guy can be a bit of a jerk on an EA forum, get locked out of all his games, splash his story over all the gaming blogs and get a policy reversal on EA's part, then lets do the same with Steam. I want my 15 seconds of e-fame.

So who has lost their Steam account for daring to voice anti-Steam heresy?

 

[Kerosene31]

People get kicked off of Steam because they are usually either pirates or cheating at an online game. The people online who complain about this are always "innocent" though.

Another common problem with Steam is a simple firewall/router configuration. People run a firewall which blocks Steam and they don't know how to fix it.

Steam is not kicking people off their service for no good reason. They want to sell you games, not block you from using them.

 

[Sock Bramson]

senethro-

Don't worry about that part of Nemo's post; if you check back a page or so, he says that he was actually thinking about the whole EA thing and mixed it up with Steam. So far, the only people Steam has banned besides cheaters were a bunch of MW2 players who accidentally got banned because they got their CD keys from a third party (or something like that), but that problem got fixed AND they all got free copies of L4D2.

 

[forty2j]

I still want to know more about this right here. This is a concerning thing that I'm surprised people aren't desperate to know more about.

Up above, Nemo recanted this statement (and attributed it to EA instead).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ V isn't well-optimized for steam (it has a disproportionate amount of steam haters for a reason, and that reason isn't all smoke and mirrors).

Steam itself though? I don't know. It's not fun to have so few rights as a gamer, but this is the norm nowadays because companies can get away with it. Gamers still have a voice through market forces, so ultimately if steam becomes untrustworthy people will move to an equivalent that is not. I believe the reality is that not enough people feel their "investment" into entertainment from steam games is too risky given the costs to really put it down. In that capacity, it will prevail. It's not all bad; there is some definite convenience potential in steam and if it doesn't compete well there people will move to another version of it.

Steam manipulates well and doesn't abuse its market too much yet, and as long as that stays true there it will be.

 

[bhavv]

If you don't like Steam - try GFWL.And check this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPYdgy35KA.
The future of PC gaming is in microsofts hands.

One thing I find hypocritical is that a lot of people who love steam absolutely hate GFWL.

How does that work? What is the difference between the two?

I have to use GFWL for Street Fighter 4, and also for the Age of Empires online beta, and tbh it actually feels like a much more streamlined, quicker and more responsive version of steam.

I really cant understand how people can love and defend steam, but have any kind of problem with GFWL.

As for the topic on EULAs that I read on the second page - courts of law actually do not consider EULAs to be law binding documents. Now particularly for a single player game, EULAs are completely pointless. Why does anyone else care about how and when I play any single player game I have paid for? Why do I have to sign an EULA stating that I can lose access to a single player game for any reason, when me playing the game however I want has absolutely no effect to anyone else?

Single player games requiring EULAs, online connections, and third party apps without an option to play a purchased boxed copy without any of this is simply completely ridiculous, there really is no defense for it.

Steam is good for a couple of things - Indie games and huge 50-75% off sales. Of course I'm not complaining about getting decent games for £2.50 - £3.75 on steam, but if I buy them full price on launch, I want a box and I want no steam or any other such programs.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Steam remakes abandonware, and sells it at a cost. Maybe it's because I'm Greek, but $5 dollars is $5 that I could have used for something better then paying for a game that is FREE on the internet. And I can actually buy licenses to games through steam. Call me old fashioned but I prefer a nice hard copy. Hard copies make it easy for me to prove I legally own the game. What do I get from steam? A promise at the same price? Also take your advertising, and shove it steam. it's like watching commercials at the theaters.

And what about security? This program can access my internet, tracks me playing all my games? Not cool. Am I supposed to trust them because they are popular? Who knows what demographic information they are (or will) track. If they could pull a profit maybe I'll get a free trial of some anti-virus automatically downloaded with my next patch.

They keep tightening to noose around our necks. Forcing us to pirate patches, and use steam to play multiplayer. It will end in lawsuits. I didn't pay for this crap, and I think the gaming companies will know when to jump off the bandwagon. In the meantime I will download Civ5 once the patches stabilize, and just own the hard copies for proof of ownership.

STEAM!!!!

These are pretty much the reason I dislike the Steam.
I dont like having a 3rd party program have access to my computer, and automatically install updates without my "ok". I dont know what is being installed. The system seems very easy to tamper with.

That and I like having the hard copy, to do as I see fit. If I decide, I am no longer going to play the game, and a friend offers to buy it off me at a reduced cost, So I can recoup losses. I like that option. I dont see that as being possible with the current setup of Steam.

 

[deanej]

Please, explain how it takes control or your PC in any way, shape, or form?

I'd love to know as apparently my PC is dominated by the Steam virus

Who said it takes control of your whole PC. That is NOT what I meant to imply. But it does control any and all steam games. At any time valve could decide to disable your account and you lose all your purchased games. Even this amount of control is unacceptable.

I've worked as a programmer for 15+ years and your "DLL" will get hacked in 20 seconds. Not that Steam is hackproof... far from it, but it is harder than a fully offline system.

It is still how library functions are done. Note that I am not talking about DRM functions. DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) should be abolished. If consumers would simply support free/open source software this would have been done years ago.

My own experience was that when i tried to register civ 5 i got banned from steam for 48 hours because i tried to use my ~6 year old half life account. Which apparently was deleted from their servers for inactivity - (I hope you read the EULA/TOS, because its in there as i found out the hard way). So, I had to wait 48 hours to register a game I bought for trying to register with an account I already had but they deleted. And the bonus is that for grins and giggles I tried to install and play half-life again afterwards but can't becasuse steam says it was registered already - uhh yeah to my deleted account. Seriously it was like 8 hours of going through steam stuff to get games running - wtf, seriously

Exactly.

For example, if the Steam license included a warranty that they'll actually remove the Steam requirement from their games should they cease to operate, then one of my main gripes would be gone.

It does, but that doesn't mean much since Valve can change the EULA at any time for any reason.

In short, they are acting like 99.9% of other businesses would in their situation.

"Everybody's doing it" doesn't make something right. Also: the last words of the villain in Pirates of the Caribbean 3 were "It was just business."

One thing I find hypocritical is that a lot of people who love steam absolutely hate GFWL.

Hating anything Microsoft is currently the "in" thing to do. I don't see why you need either service for an SP game.

As for the topic on EULAs that I read on the second page - courts of law actually do not consider EULAs to be law binding documents.

They do in the US.

 

[Sock Bramson]

So much unfounded hate, most of it based on paranoia. And yes, it is a bit paranoid to not use Steam because you can envision bad scenarios that have not happened at all since the programs inception. As of right now, the only easy way to lose access to your Steam games is to blatantly cheat; say no to aimbot/wallhack/etc, even on non-Steam games. (Civ equivalent- Civ4 world builder*) Have a little faith in our hat-wearing friends. Or, if you absolutely must resell games, just promise me you won't sell 'em to Gamestop. I worked there for half a year, and while it was a pretty easy ass job, we screwed people over hardcore on trade-ins.

*Do as I say, not as I do.

edit: btw deanej, you took psy's quote out of context there (the businesses acting like businesses thing); you'll find he's actually on your side if you go back and read through his posts.

Moderator Action: Please heed the moderator warnings in the thread. Do not deride the opinions of others as 'unfounded hate' or 'paranoia'.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JesusOnEez]

The only real downside to Steam is if Valve goes under, and if that happens it is going to be a major blow to PC gaming. If that day ever does come, we can download all our software since it will be "abandonware" at that point.

My experience mirrors yours. Wasn't sure about it to begin with, and now I almost exclusively buy games on Steam unless they're cheaper from Amazon or somewhere else. This doesn't very often happen.

With regards to one of the arguments that crops up a lot from those worried about Steam, the "Valve might go under" argument. I see two probabilities if they do go under.

1. They will get bought out by EA or whoever, the Steam service will carry on running and Steam users will barely notice a thing.

2. Worst case scenario, they go under, nobody buys them or their intellectual property, hardware etc and Steam truly dies. We would likely loose a lot of the older games (or at least would when we come to need a new computer or reinstall), but the developers would likely release patches to allow their games to run without Steam so in theory you may only lose out on your oldest and unsupported games which in fairness would suck, but wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world if you don't play a lot of those old games anymore.

In all seriousness, scenario 1 is is likely a hundred times more likely than scenario 2 with the likes of the Half Life and Portal franchises up for grabs, and, as far as I know, Steam is a money spinner at the moment, so it's unlikely to happen in the near or even middling future.

I've always considered the "Valve going under" argument a non argument really.

Liking Steam as I do, I feel that it doesn't make a difference to me whether I'm blowing someone's face off in a game with Steam running or otherwise. The EULA doesn't compromise on my experience of brain matter splattering the wall, or nuking Alexander, or dropping a Holy Hand Grenade on a group of worms or whatever. Sucky EULA or no sucky EULA, the game's the same and, no offence to anyone, I find the arguments against it finicky and thin at best. However, I admit to being biased as I've never had a technical problem with it and can certainly imagine it being a turd if a tech problem does crop up. Being an old IT support person though, most technical problems tend to stem from user error, and not a fault with the system itself. Everyone's using the same system after all right?

 

[Kerosene31]

Civ V isn't well-optimized for steam (it has a disproportionate amount of steam haters for a reason, and that reason isn't all smoke and mirrors).

Really now? How is it not well-optimized?

You don't like it and that's your right, but can you at least admit that many of us not only tolerate it, but like having it?

 

[Smokeybear]

Really now? How is it not well-optimized?

You don't like it and that's your right, but can you at least admit that many of us not only tolerate it, but like having it?

After the Japanese officially surrendered in 1945, some fanatical (and/or poorly informed) soldiers remained in hiding in various island jungles and caves for up to 30 years later, still mentally at war with and refusing to surrender to their sworn enemies for all that time. See any similarities here? In any cause, there are always a small number of hardcore fanatics who will never admit they've lost, even after there's nobody left to rail to but the crickets in the back of the cave.

They may either eventually come out into the sun and join the world as it moves on, or gather mold alone in their caves as the world forgets about them. Either way... next game!

 

[Robo-Star]

This is to all the people who started out hating Steam: Do you still hate it?

Probably been brought up before, but still...who is more likely to still be here - those who grew to like it, or those who didn't?