Anti-Steam Petition

[Willem]

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

Agreed. But if they've gotten used to paying monthly for an online game, they're going to be that much more willing to do the same for an SP. Especially with a game like Civ that has an online component.

 

[Magma]

Agreed. But if they've gotten used to paying monthly for an online game, they're going to be that much more willing to do the same for an SP. Especially with a game like Civ that has an online component.

The two are fundamentally different though. WoW is a game where you can play with 500+ people at once if your connection, computer and Blizzard's server can handle it. You cannot play singleplayer in WoW, it is designed for multiplayer and everything is hosted on Blizzard's servers. You simply cannot do the same in a singleplayer game.

While I understand your concern, even Blizzard considered that Battlenet 2 should require subscription, then SC2 is coming out in the late of July without BN2 having any cost. Hopefully the companies will understand the borderline between the two genres of games.

 

[Senethro]

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.

You've a couple of data points on your graph and you're trying to draw a trendline that isn't supported. WoW doesn't even count and the Mass Effect DRM removal shows that customers can stop the worst excesses so your paranoia is unwarranted.

With WoW Blizzard incurs perpetual bandwidth use so it makes sense that they have a subscription. Valve's Steam distribution means games usually get downloaded once or twice and rarely again. They're different business models so theres no reason to think a subs service will come about for singleplayer games.

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 picked up GTA4 for 5 of my local currency on Steam at Christmas. Haven't even looked at it yet. Between Steam for current games and GoG for old, difficult to find games I don't feel the need to go to Ebay.

Given that software arguably has the properties of a service as well as merchandise it makes sense that the license to use it shouldn't be fully transferable. Apples get eaten, furniture gets worn but information doesn't degrade with use.

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.

It won't be a hassle. You'll just ask Steam to do it for you.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I agree with the OP. I object to it being steam only and probably won't buy it on that account. My games computer is not the one with internet access.

 

[Chalks]

Agreed. But if they've gotten used to paying monthly for an online game, they're going to be that much more willing to do the same for an SP. Especially with a game like Civ that has an online component.

Your argument is extremely perplexing.

On the one hand, you argue that players are incapable of preventing themselves from accepting gradual incremental decline into more and more unreasonable concessions to corporate overlords.

On the other hand, you are completely unwilling to join us in supporting the most reasonable option available to try to prevent further degeneration, instead choosing you root yourself in an untenable extreme that is doomed to failure.

Publishers have decided that games with weak DRM are pirated to an unacceptable degree so you have the choice between encouraging them towards the acceptable compromise of Steam or hurling yourself from the summit of gaming progress, never playing a new game again, achieving nothing on your way down.

 

[The_Coyote]

you didn´t mentioned the third option:

don´t buy games until they are delivered with conditions you can accept. Believe me, if the publishers loss money, they will change there strategie. But you try everything you can to say to the public here that this is not and will not be possible, and therefore have to accept "every" buisness decisions. But to say it simple, there is no force that forces me to buy a game, even if i would like do it under different conditions. And it´s my right to post this opinion in a public forum.

Also you know, there will always be a less "evil" solution (depending on personal preferences you certainly could argue that it is a "good" and not a "less evil" decision).

Perhaps you could start to accept that there is an opposite point of view in this case and simply leave this thread. This is not the "discussion" thread, it´s the "no steam petition" thread. And i have the feeling you certainly will not sign this petition

 

[Willem]

You've a couple of data points on your graph and you're trying to draw a trendline that isn't supported. WoW doesn't even count and the Mass Effect DRM removal shows that customers can stop the worst excesses so your paranoia is unwarranted.

With WoW Blizzard incurs perpetual bandwidth use so it makes sense that they have a subscription. Valve's Steam distribution means games usually get downloaded once or twice and rarely again. They're different business models so theres no reason to think a subs service will come about for singleplayer games.

When I was young, banks had no service charges at all. You opened an account and that was it. Then they introduced a monthly fee and people thought "Oh well, why not?" Now there's a service charge for pretty much everything you do in a bank, with only limited free transactions allowed. So no, my paranoia is not unwarranted. It's a trend I've seen happening around me all my life. I see fees being charged for all sorts of things that didn't have them 20 years ago. I guess you just haven't been around long enough to recognize the writing on the wall yet.

I picked up GTA4 for 5 of my local currency on Steam at Christmas. Haven't even looked at it yet. Between Steam for current games and GoG for old, difficult to find games I don't feel the need to go to Ebay.

Well nice for you that you have a reliable broadband service that allows you to download games when you want. Unfortunately not everyone is so lucky. I just read an article about Canada, stating that 22% of the population has no access to broadband services at all. I suspect the same holds true in the US. That's alot of people who are going to be excluded from purchasing older games that are no longer being carried by local retailers. Not to mention those people that are on some service that restricts the amount of bandwidth they're allowed. I'm on one myself. I'm only allowed 200 meg a day, so downloading a full game is out of the question. Not to mention that it's a wireless service with constant drop outs, which makes it totally unreliable to download anything but smaller files. And I don't have a choice in the matter, I can't sign up with another service where I'm currently living. I have no direct phone or cable service, only the wireless system and my cell phone.

Given that software arguably has the properties of a service as well as merchandise it makes sense that the license to use it shouldn't be fully transferable.

It's a creative property just like a book or a painting. Are you trying to say that those things shouldn't be allowed to pass from hand to hand as well? That's not a very ecological approach either. You don't play a game so you just toss it in the garbage and let things pile up in the land fill? Why not pass it along and let someone else get some use out of it for awhile?

It won't be a hassle. You'll just ask Steam to do it for you.

You just don't get it do you? I don't like having to connect to the internet to always patch my game. I want a standalone file that I can store on my computer and use anytime that I choose to. That's a choice, but that choice is being taken away from me with this arrangement. How many other choices will I have to sacrifice in the future if I want to play a computer game?

On the other hand, you are completely unwilling to join us in supporting the most reasonable option available to try to prevent further degeneration, instead choosing you root yourself in an untenable extreme that is doomed to failure.

Because I'm not convinced that this is as far as it will go. I see it as nothing more than an experiment on the part of 2K to see how it works, and whether the public is willing to expect it. There's already 2 large game companies that have tried draconian DRM measures, EA and UBISoft. Why shouldn't 2K follow suit? If everyone jumps on the bandwagon, the public isn't going to have much a choice in the matter.

 

[Chalks]

Because I'm not convinced that this is a far as it will go. I see it as nothing more than an experiment on the part of 2K to see how it works, and whether the public is willing to expect it. There's already 2 large game companies that have tried draconian DRM measures, EA and UBISoft. Why shouldn't 2K follow suit? If everyone jumps on the bandwagon, the public isn't going to have much a choice in the matter.

So you propose that the best way to stop it from going further is to leave the game buying market and become irrelevant in their minds?

2K won't follow suit if Steam powered games sell really well without all the draconian restrictions. It's simple. By refusing to support the reasonable solution you do nothing to prevent a slide into oblivion. Only by supporting the compromise can you put pressure on the extremists at the other end to compromise too.

 

[Willem]

By refusing to support the reasonable solution you do nothing to prevent a slide into oblivion. Only by supporting the compromise can you put pressure on the extremists at the other end to compromise too.

We've been using the reasonable solution for years now, a serial code you type in when you install a game. No it didn't stop piracy altogether, but neither has anything else. I was just reading up on the system used in Assassin's Creed 2 and how someone hacked their way around that copy protection as well. DRM systems do nothing to stop determined pirates, it only inconveniences the general user. And I'm sure the game companies must realize this. So I have to wonder if all these efforts are being put into place simply to prevent people from passing along their used games to someone else, or installing it on multiple systems. They just want to force everyone to go out and buy a brand new game, more if you happen to have multiple computers.

PS: Your argument here is exactly what I was trying to point out in my bank analogy. People accepted the initial fees quietly and the next step resulted in them paying for everything. You consider it perfectly reasonable to use this type of DRM, and by doing so you open the door to the next step. Sorry, but I'm not willing to be a lemming and follow you over that cliff. You obviously have your heart set on it though.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

And I'm sure the game companies must realize this. So I have to wonder if all these efforts are being put into place simply to prevent people from passing along their used games to someone else, or installing it on multiple systems. They just want to force everyone to go out and buy a brand new game, more if you happen to have multiple computers.

.

And to impress potential investors enough to get them to part with their money . . .

 

[Chalks]

We've been using the reasonable solution for years now, a serial code you type in when you install a game. No it didn't stop piracy altogether, but neither has anything else.

It didn't stop piracy AT ALL. Without a tie to a central database a serial code system is completely useless.

Here's how you pirate a game with a serial code: Copy the CD, then write down the serial code and give it to the guy who wants to pirate it. How is that a significant obstacle?

That's not even touching on the subject of cd key generation.

CD-in-drive DRM is both useless and a massive pain in the ass.

All these systems are archaic and useless.

You cannot hope for such systems to persist in the internet age. There is absolutely no chance that DRM will not evolve, the only question is does it evolve in a way that makes gaming better or makes gaming worse.

 

[Willem]

Copy the CD, then write down the serial code and give it to the guy who wants to pirate it. How is that a significant obstacle?

Wow, you really are naive aren't you? With a half decent copy protection scheme you can't simply copy a disk. It's been that way since the Commodore 64 days. If you try the code ends up becoming gibberish. The only way to get around it is to reverse engineer the software, removing the protection. And as I mentioned, no system can stop a determined pirate, they will always find a way around any system. Assassin's Creed proved that plainly enough. The best companies can hope for is that the general public doesn't simply make a copy of the game and pass it along to their buddies. Which you can't do with the systems we've been using for many, many years now. I recall trying to hack the Dungeon Master game on my Commodore 64 using some protection breaking software I had. I couldn't, the game wouldn't play after I tried it. If that was possible way back then, surely the same holds true today.

 

[ahenobarb]

NO TO STEAM!!!

PS: Don't play WoW, play Eve.

 

[Chalks]

Wow, you really are naive aren't you? With a half decent copy protection scheme you can't simply copy a disk. It's been that way since the Commodore 64 days. If you try the code ends up becoming gibberish. The only way to get around it is to reverse engineer the software, removing the protection. And as I mentioned, no system can stop a determined pirate, they will always find a way around any system. Assassin's Creed proved that plainly enough. The best companies can hope for is that the general public doesn't simply make a copy of the game and pass it along to their buddies. Which you can't do with the systems we've been using for many, many years now. I recall trying to hack the Dungeon Master game on my Commodore 64 using some protection breaking software I had. I couldn't, the game wouldn't play after I tried it. If that was possible way back then, surely the same holds true today.

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here. I am unable to link to cd ripping software that will allow you to clone a disk to a mountable ISO image with a couple of mouse clicks but I'm sure you can find some yourself with some creative search terms.

Have you seriously never mounted an ISO image to play a "completely legitimately acquired game" before?

And you call me naive.

 

[fishlore]

I've had Steam on a gaming rig before. I won't have Steam on a gaming rig in the future. If Steam's required, I won't be purchasing Civ 5. As anyone who sees my posting history can attest, I don't really give a flying fudge. There are plenty of games to waste my time on, this one won't be one of them. Boo freaking hoo.

 

[Padje Dog]

I have owned every game in the Civ series. Can somebody tell me why I should have to use Steam even if I buy the game in a box from a store?

I don't want Steam. I won't use it.

Thankyou Firaxis for curing me of my Civ addiction, my wife thanks you

 

[Ddude97]

/signed
Although I know this will have no effect .

 

[Chalks]

I have owned every game in the Civ series. Can somebody tell me why I should have to use Steam even if I buy the game in a box from a store?

I don't want Steam. I won't use it.

Thankyou Firaxis for curing me of my Civ addiction, my wife thanks you

Steamworks is a game distribution and networking platform that the game's code is based on which will be used for all the multiplayer gameplay, friends lists, mod distribution, updates and chat.

Your irrational dislike for these features is interesting.

Tell me, can you actually put your finger on which feature of the platform you dislike, or do you just like bandwagons?

 

[Willem]

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here. I am unable to link to cd ripping software that will allow you to clone a disk to a mountable ISO image with a couple of mouse clicks but I'm sure you can find some yourself with some creative search terms.

Have you seriously never mounted an ISO image to play a "completely legitimately acquired game" before?

And you call me naive.

OK, you have a point. And no, I've never bothered with ISO copies, though I know what they are. I've never had the need for them. But most people don't know what they are, or can't be bothered going through all that trouble. That still doesn't avoid the truth that there is no such thing as an uncrackable system. If the game companies want to make a dent in piracy, they should be fostering good will with the public so they don't mind giving them money for their products. Instead they just come up with more ways to inconvenience the end-user that does absolutely nothing to stop the dedicated hackers. This scheme is no different, and could very well lead to even worse measures down the road. As soon as the first cracked version of Civ 5 hits the P2P networks, 2K will no doubt be thinking of ways of tightening the noose even further, with the general user being caught in the middle.

Your irrational dislike for these features is interesting.

I don't know what's so irrational about not wanting something you have no use for. If someone doesn't buy games online, or play them either, why should they be forced to have that software on their system? I do neither, so having to install Steam is simply yet more bloatware to clog my system with. It's completely pointless for me to require that software in order to play a single game.

 

[sikk]

I'm totally ok with Steam since I already have a few games from there on my PC already.

Not needing a disc in the PC to play = win, IMHO. Not sure I get all the hate for Steam in here.