tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
All kidding aside, you are probably right, Steam would get a bailout if a bankruptcy situation ever occurred. It would be the biggest Govt takeover of the gaming industry in the history of the world.
A case for forum members easing up on 2K a bit
- Thread starter thelibra
- Start date
All kidding aside, you are probably right, Steam would get a bailout if a bankruptcy situation ever occurred. It would be the biggest Govt takeover of the gaming industry in the history of the world.
azzaman333
meh
Yep, reading books is sooo 2nd millennium. 
Get with the times.
Get with the times.ruskyandrei
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 144
Just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents on two of the matters being discussed here.
1) The issue of STEAM; particularly STEAM being horribly bad and so on.
I've bought games on STEAM before and never really had any issues with it. I personally love it, maybe not so much STEAM itself as any D2D type of "store". I can easily, and quickly purchase a new game without standing in line or having to go out to a store for it, and since my purchase stays active within my STEAM account forever, i can easily install it on another pc, reinstall it 10y later etc, and never worry about losing/misplacing/breaking my cd/dvds.
As mentioned already you can always turn STEAM to offline mode after installing the game, you can also disable auto updates and, at least as far as the games i bought so far, you can easily patch them with patches you manually download and add mods just like normal.
Yes the steam client has to run, as it is overimposed on top of the game like a launcher and community tool (much like the Games for Windows Live platform), but i for one never really had any issues with it.
2) On the whole "using STEAM allowed for a better Civ 5" thing.
Fact is, it did. I used to work in the video games industry. Not for very long mind you, just about 8 months, but i can tell you that games, much like any software product (and possibly any other product) are dependant on 2 things during the development time: TIME and MONEY.
The 2 are interchangeable to a point, but far from 1:1 and you can't always make up a lack of one with more of the other.
In this particular case, Civ5 was (most likely) planned from the start with some form of community tool and multiplayer support.
This represented development time that the devs would've spent on making this part of the game (whether you think it is in fact important or not for the game as a whole does not matter, they were going to add it anyway and it was going to take a certain amount of time)
By using STEAM, they exchanged some MONEY for extra TIME, which they in turn can use to develop other facets of the game (such as AI, Balancing, etc, which most would agree is a good thing).
As such, using STEAM DID in fact help with the development of the game, regardless of whether or not it was ordered by 2k or not.
To conlclude, i feel that, while there are definitely some legitimate concerns about the use of STEAM in the case of civ5, most of the large uproar is coming from misinformed people afraid of something they don't care about researching first.
1) The issue of STEAM; particularly STEAM being horribly bad and so on.
I've bought games on STEAM before and never really had any issues with it. I personally love it, maybe not so much STEAM itself as any D2D type of "store". I can easily, and quickly purchase a new game without standing in line or having to go out to a store for it, and since my purchase stays active within my STEAM account forever, i can easily install it on another pc, reinstall it 10y later etc, and never worry about losing/misplacing/breaking my cd/dvds.
As mentioned already you can always turn STEAM to offline mode after installing the game, you can also disable auto updates and, at least as far as the games i bought so far, you can easily patch them with patches you manually download and add mods just like normal.
Yes the steam client has to run, as it is overimposed on top of the game like a launcher and community tool (much like the Games for Windows Live platform), but i for one never really had any issues with it.
2) On the whole "using STEAM allowed for a better Civ 5" thing.
Fact is, it did. I used to work in the video games industry. Not for very long mind you, just about 8 months, but i can tell you that games, much like any software product (and possibly any other product) are dependant on 2 things during the development time: TIME and MONEY.
The 2 are interchangeable to a point, but far from 1:1 and you can't always make up a lack of one with more of the other.
In this particular case, Civ5 was (most likely) planned from the start with some form of community tool and multiplayer support.
This represented development time that the devs would've spent on making this part of the game (whether you think it is in fact important or not for the game as a whole does not matter, they were going to add it anyway and it was going to take a certain amount of time)
By using STEAM, they exchanged some MONEY for extra TIME, which they in turn can use to develop other facets of the game (such as AI, Balancing, etc, which most would agree is a good thing).
As such, using STEAM DID in fact help with the development of the game, regardless of whether or not it was ordered by 2k or not.
To conlclude, i feel that, while there are definitely some legitimate concerns about the use of STEAM in the case of civ5, most of the large uproar is coming from misinformed people afraid of something they don't care about researching first.
EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
Thank you, I had actually missed that. Sorry.
bjbrains
Man of U-235
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 837
A few additions: Any kind of overlay that the steam client gives you can be ignored and/or turned off (Logging out of the friends server stops any messages). Also, steamworks is actually free, so they just got mostly free time, with no money (which they would have had to spend on the features steam brings).
wolfigor
Emperor
The main concern of most of Steam critics here is not what you stated, but a much more basic need for CHOICE.
What people complain is not, strictly, the quality of Steam but the fact that there is not way to play CIV V without it.
It's true, we can all live with some of the limitation of Steam but we would rather have a choice about it.
Some people would prefer to play their favourite game without having to sign into yet another community collecting data, getting control of all our "user generated content" and interactions, etc. etc.
Additionally people get upset about is to be patronised: steam is good for you, Steam is bringing additional features you can't live without, etc.
The choice of exclusive distribution via Steam is only commercial, all other justifications are just excuses.
We have far too many companies playing us for stupid (banks, insurances, carriers, etc.), we see with sadness that Fireaxis joins the list.
In conclusion it's a matter of consumer choice and the way commercial policies are masked for "useful features".
small note:
technically Steam is not necessary to run CIV V or to power any of its functionalities.
Steamworks was chosen for multiplayer... in a better world users would need to install the steam platform only to enable multiplayer: That would have been fair with the end-users.
azzaman333
meh
Except that's a waste of time and money to have two separate versions of the game.
wolfigor
Emperor
it's not two separated versions.
It's only one version with full features, just that if you try to start a multiplayer game without Steam, the game will ask you to install it.
It's just to delay the check for Steam from startup to staring a multiplayer game.
azzaman333
meh
Steam is integrated into the game. To have a single player only version which doesn't use steam would be two separate versions.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Depends on what you define as a serperate version. But I'm hugely for what wolfigor describes.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Neither Steam nor Steamworks are free in any way.
It's all paid by the customers, since they have to pay the same price as a version coming on DVD (which has to be produced), with a printed manual (which has to be produced), both have to be shipped (which - hear, hear! - costs some money, too) and finally requires some place in the store (costs of opportunity). All those costs are saved when we are talking about digital distribution. So, DD should cost less than the physical copy. Yet, it does not.
You are going to pay - at least - the same price as for the physical retail copy.
I am pretty sure there are many who would agree that a Steam version is waste of time and money.
bjbrains
Man of U-235
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 837
But the end story is that you're not paying any more than you were for the same game. I fail to see how the consumer is paying more (you *do* realize it will be in retail stores as well?). And the publisher won't undercut retail stores at launch (since those will still form the majority of the sales, and they can't afford to have stores refusing to carry it). I think you're too caught up in your personal dislike to see the pragmatism in the situation.
BTW, don't make it seem like you have some kind of "public movement" which you haven't given any evidence for. You can't claim support that doesn't appear to exist.
azzaman333
meh
Well go ahead and make a Steam-free version. Meanwhile, Firaxis will continue to use steam because it saves them time and money.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
As is proven by the statement that Pitboss, PBEM and hotseat will come later?
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Oh? Well, then Steam only serves as DRM (useless, just scrap DRM from this world, it isn't going to work anytime soon), or are there other functions (besides community nonsenses which have ntohing to do with Civilizations V).
azzaman333
meh
Wasn't it you who said Multiplayer didn't matter, so Steam is unnecessary?
Regardless, they'll be included after a couple of patches anyway, and are easier to add after release than other features.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
The irony of seeing this on a civ community message board is. . . illuminating
Civ V will come with an in game browser which will allow you to access this community (and other similar sites)...from within the game; look for and launch mods...from within the game; mods which can be hosted by Steam or by sites such as this. All of which will be facilitated by the Steamworks API.
The entire civ community will have access to mods, not just those of use who frequent sites such as CFC. I would think that this would be really exciting news for the (current and future) modding community. All of which, again, will be facilitated by the Steamworks API.
It sounds like you can't see the value in any of that, but some of us do. Was it something I would have thought to include? Nope. But I'm glad they did.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
What kind of difference does this make?
Yes, for me mp is of no interest. Yet, I have never denied the fact that to other people it is of interest.
In addition, I am pretty sure that many people would have expected the PBEM/hotseat features to be available from day 1 on, as these are gaming options which have been available and used in previous versions.
(And I am intentionally not referring to the Pitboss functionality, because it came late for Civ4 too. [Although Civ4 did not have the time and money saving Steamworks under the hood - so why do we face the same delay in both versions of the game?])
Maybe.
Yet, if they can be implemented later on in an easier way than other stuff could be added later, chances seem to be good that it would have been even more easy to implement them in time.
It is just a fact that those three sub-elements have been stated to come later. To me, this seems to contradict a bit the assertion that Steam really did save time and/or money.
