Anti-Steam Petition

I think that this site needs to create an official Steam: Explained post or something. A lot of people seem to be confused.

 

Dont post here much anymore, but i despise steam. No steam for me plz

/signed

 

While I don't have very much against steam on it's own, having the deluxe edition as an exclusive was a baaaad move.

Signed, I suppose.

How right you are.

 

As long as they leave that stupid Need CD crap I will be fine with Buying from Stores. That why I buy my games online now becuse I dont want to have to keep flipping cds.

 

Not sure why you keep wanting to advertise that game. Really, any game that pays you to play is without a doubt a waste of time. And no, I'm not talking about prize rewards for tournaments etc., and even they are almost certainly not good use of time for the purpose of earning money.

Logic error:

If I notice that a car I was hoping to get is only available in pink, it's reasonable to say I'd say it'd give me reason to hesitate from buying it. Does that mean that I would want to buy the car for the sole reason that it is not pink?

Your argument is ridiculous. I'm sorry.

Standalone patches are a good thing IMO and preferable to automatic updates or something of that sort. Doesn't bother me a great deal but it's reasonable for it to be a concern to someone.

More than likely with civ5 you will be losing the right to say no to a patch. I'm not entirely sure about how this works so correct me if I'm wrong but I have trouble believing you'd be able to install the game and install your preferred patch.

Not that I'm advocating piracy, but he did have a point you seem to have missed or ignored. If you buy the game from a retail store, you pay the full price of the game plus only a bit of download cost for patches etc. Pirating a game means the only cost is the download cost. Even in Australia, it would not cost $100 (AUD) (the approximate release cost of civ5 DE) to download ~10GB (or whatever) of data unless you were on a plan that was clearly not intended for that much data. (e.g. on my phone internet costs about $1 per MB which IMO is outrageous!).

 

You're not suggesting that more people are going to be playing Civ5 as there are playing MW2, TF2 and L4D2, are you? You are reacting like Valve is going to need to quadruple there capacity for Civ5, which is simply not true.

Counter-Strike: Source was updated Feb 2 of this year. So no need to worry there. Also they'll still be selling it, just like the sold Civ 3 this weekend and are in fact still selling it. Valve makes money with Steam. They are very good at it.

I advise anyone with doubts to visit the following site: http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/

I dare to make a bet; that the majority of complainers now. Will not only buy the game but see how Steam benefits everyone and will start to love it.

For the alu-heads: I am not a Valve employee.

 

Well that's what I'm worried about with this move. By the time Civ 6 comes out, the public will be willing to accept a restrictive DRM method like the one used by EA in Mass Effect. Or a monthly subscription system like the one used with games like WoW. All it takes is small steps in that direction, with this being one of the first, and we will no longer own our games but rent them instead.

 

Buying a car for how it looks is perfectly reasonable.

Buying a game because of its patching system is less so.

Your car analogies, they are not working but keep trying. Nothing beats a good car analogy.

 

No, in 10 years we'll be further, then we want a blood sample or want to small on our pants for a confirmation, that you and only you plays the game.

 

Wait, I know this one. This is slippery slope fallacy, right?

 

I notice that many posts in this thread belong to discussion thread.
This is a petittion thread.

/signed

and unsubscribed

 

You ignore the rest of my post? I explained why standalone patches are desirable.

You have a habit of selectively quoting, removing the bits that would be inconvenient to your argument.

Buying a car because of its colour would have to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen a person do. You know damn well that you were ridiculing Willem by suggesting he would buy a game for the sole reason it had standalone patches. That is obviously false and the car analogy was sufficient to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning.

But please, enjoy buying your next car that looks good but has no engine. I will instead buy a car that actually works and where its looks is only one factor that goes into my decision.

 

It's not a fallacy at all. If the public accepts one step in that direction, why shouldn't the publisher take the next one, then the next? Or do you have some sort of proof that it's simply impossible for this to happen? I'd rather err on the side of caution and avoid taking that first step in the first place. But as long as there's people like you who are willing to act like lemmings without ever thinking about the possibilities, that's not likely to happen.

 

Stand alone patches may be desirable, but they're not the reason anyone buys a game.

That's the point, if you're going to get caught up in semantics then I'm going to ignore the majority of your waffle.

 

No, I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the slippery slope fallacy is. The last time I encountered it was that gay marriage would devalue all marriage and lead to people marrying relatives, animals and inanimate objects.

Since you're so well versed in debate, perhaps you could tell me how it is possible to prove a negative, that something is impossible?

"Err on the side of caution", "thinking about the possibilities", you've got nothing except fear, do you? Never mind that the most extreme forms of DRM have been curtailed at the publics request repeatedly, all you can do is paint eventual apocalypse scenarios WHERE WE DON'T OWN OUR GAMES.

How about demonstrating likelihood instead of unrealistic worst case scenarios?

 

Agreed.
Willem would also agree.

Willem did say the absence of standalone patches could make him hesitate on buying the game. That is plainly not the same thing as saying that including standalone patches would be a sufficient reason to buy a game. That is what you implied with your argument and you got pinged for it.

Lol, now I'm getting caught up in semantics. May I remind you that you were one mocking someone for their argument in the first place. You have a point that I am arguing semantics but we're talking about pretty basic stuff here.

Also, are you not yourself enthusiastic about arguing semantics sometimes?:

 

Forgot to sign up to the petition - \signed.

 

No, I have a precedent. EA already tried to pull one over with Mass Effect, and I believe Command & Conquer 4 as well, and thousands of people are happily paying out a monthly subscription to Blizzard in order to play WoW. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is all leading to. Too bad you're not capable of seeing the forest for the trees.

PS: Even if I am being somewhat paranoid about the direction this is leading as one of the moderators pointed out, I forget who now, having a system like this in place will put an end to used game sales. You can forget about ever seeing a second hand copy of Civ 5 on EBay. Once you register the game, it will be useless to anyone else. That alone is a good enough reason not to want this system. I've bought a few games second hand that I could never have bought brand new, and given away many of my older games. That will be a thing of the past with this type of activation.

I never said it was. But not having them is one more consideration in not buying a game for me. Just one more hair on the camel's back so to speak. If I'm sitting on the fence and I realize that it might be a hassle for me to update the game, then that can be enough to convince me not to buy it.

 

WoW is an MMO. It is quite common for those games to require subscription and that was also before WoW.