Anti-Steam Petition

[Sahkuhnder]

No it doesn't. Because it doesn't count the people who didn't buy it through steam, but still would have bought the game even if it had required steam.

Your claim is that requiring steam will lead to significant numbers of people to not buy the game.

This doesn't get you there - even if (as I'm sure is true) most Civ4 purchases were not through Steam.

Also, Steam was in its infancy 6 years ago.

I'm not claiming anything one way or the other. If our goal is to determine the demand for Steam for Civ5 then the best reference would be a very similar game, civ4, which is available both through Steam and non-Steam sources and can optionally use Steam features or be totally run without any Steam at all.

I understand that Steam is a semi-recent thing. That's why I included "then how many of the non-steam sales added their game to steam".

Can you think of a better comparison?


====================

Although this would be a very interesting statistic to see, it would be pretty meaningless. Civilization 4 did not become available on Steam until over a year after its initial release and whether or not someone would explicitly choose to buy a game through Steam is not the issue here.

The issue is: are there enough people who would flat out refuse to buy the game over Steam to make it reasonable for Firaxis to spend time to explicitly cater for these people.

I say the answer is no, and evidence seems to suggest that Steamworks games sell just as well as games utilising other systems which indicates that this assumption is correct.

Please see my bolding of your comments in my previous post. The issue you just brought up was not the issue I was attempting to address.

You claimed a majority opinion for support of Steam and asked for "any proof of your significance" for the opposing opinion. I offered the nearest equivalent as a means of adding actual data to the discussion.

If Steam is that popular then the Civ4 numbers should reflect that support.

 

[Ahriman]

the true majority of players are indifferent and as such will get the game via steam and not have a single iota of an issue with it.

Right! Most people have no issue with using Steam, or not, they just want to play Civ. So, what's the issue here?

they could have just as easily made/designed it with something a lil less intrusive

Like what? What is less intrusive DRM than a one-time online authentication?

If our goal is to determine the demand for Steam

This issue isn't the demand for Steam. Its whether the requirement for steam will significantly reduce the number of people who will use the game. It won't. Hence, its unreasonable to demand that 2K remove the steam requirement from its game.

That's why I included "then how many of the non-steam sales added their game to steam".

Which is a useless number. Why would anyone who already had the game installed on their computer bother to somehow add it to their Steam portfolio?

 

[Chalks]

Please see my bolding of your comments in my previous post. The issue you just brought up was not the issue I was attempting to address.

You claimed a majority opinion for support of Steam and asked for "any proof of your significance" for the opposing opinion. I offered the nearest equivalent as a means of adding actual data to the discussion.

If Steam is that popular then the Civ4 numbers should reflect that support.

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

The number of people who bought the non steam version of 4 is in no way representative of the number of people who would have flat out refused to buy the game if it was steam only.

I, for example, bought a boxed copy of civ 4 rather than a steam version because as I said, it was not available on steam when it was first released.

Many other people bought a non steam copy of the game after the steam release just because there is really no difference between the versions in most people's opinion.

Say 1 million copies were sold through steam and 3 million copies were sold through physical copies. I then proceed to argue that the majority of those copies would have been bought anyway even if they came with steamworks and then we're back to square one.

Do you see? It doesn't make sense.

 

[snowlyon]

No, my assertion was that the majority of people would appreciate using mods, chat, multiplayer, contact lists or auto-updates. You've latched onto it as if it was the crux of my argument for some reason that I am not entirely aware of.

The actual crux of my argument is that the number of people who hate steam enough to actually avoid buying the game for this reason is such a small minority that it is unreasonable to expect Firaxis to change their development plans to cater for them.

no...I am here cause the very moment you mention the majority of players wanted steam. I can go back and dig the quote out but then you never responded directly the last two times I brought it up. now, you have once again entered dance mode so I dont suspect to receive a straight answer this time either.

I havent "latched" on to anything other than what you presented in your statement I quoted. if we are to speak of "latching" one could say it is of your desire to try and nay say everyone here that speaks against the idea of have Steam being used. heck...I wouldnt be saying a peep at the moment had you not taken such an unyielding hardline point of view.~

 

[AvatarLDI]

Right! Most people have no issue with using Steam, or not, they just want to play Civ. So, what's the issue here?

The issue is Chalk claiming that a majority prefer Steam to be the only option, a illogical assumption and impossible to prove.

Like what? What is less intrusive DRM than a one-time online authentication?

It involves far more then a one-time online authentication. It will continue to run in the background as it has for other games, and will not be able to be played without Steam on your computer. It has been said you will have to connect to the internet periodically, perhaps once a month to Steam to verify you own the game for you to be able to continue to use it. It will automatically install patches even if we don't want them. You will not be able to play your game if you do not have an internet connection. Steam is a form of spyware, that is how it will let people know if you cheated in your game which is no ones business since we only want to play it alone on our own computers, and that is how it gives you credit for achievements which we don't care about. If Steam ever goes out of business some day as most companies do or changes hands, you would not be able to play the game anymore. I have had bad experiences with Steam and don't trust them. Their is a privacey issue involved.

This issue isn't the demand for Steam. Its whether the requirement for steam will significantly reduce the number of people who will use the game. It won't.

It will reduce the number of people who will buy the game, how significantly that number will be, no one knows, but their will be a loss of sales. What company would choose to decrease sales and lose even a small percentage of customers.

The debate here is the repeated claim as "fact" buy Chalks that a majority of people prefer the game to have Steam, I find that claim highly unlikely and unreasonalble, and unprovable. It is these repeated claims of non-existant "facts" that I and others are taking issue with. They are simply opinions, no more valid then mine.

 

[Chalks]

no...I am here cause the very moment you mention the majority of players wanted steam. I can go back and dig the quote out but then you never responded directly the last two times I brought it up.

Let me save you some time. The quote you picked up on was:

Even if you don't personally care about mods and multiplayer, they are still desired by the majority.

Yes, I do tend to ignore people who twist my words. Sorry buddy.

 

[Chalks]

The issue is Chalk claiming that a majority prefer Steam to be the only option, a illogical assumption and impossible to prove.

No I am not! Jesus christ, what is wrong with you?

I am claiming that the majority of players are going to buy the game when it is powered by Steamworks.

There, you can QUOTE THAT next time you want to talk about what I am trying to claim since you apparently have trouble re-typing it yourself.

The people who are going to refuse to buy the game because it is powered by Steamworks and are trying to claim that Firaxis should do a whole bunch of extra development work just to cater for them are in a minority and it would not be reasonable to expect Firaxis to listen to them.

Moderator Action: Do not use profanity in the forums

 

[Ahriman]

It will continue to run in the background as it has for other games, and will not be able to be played without Steam on your computer/

So?

It has been said you will have to connect to the internet periodically, perhaps once a month to Steam to verify you own the game for you to be able to continue to use it

I do not believe this to be true.
I don't think Steam works this way.

It will automatically install patches even if we don't want them

You can turn this off with a single checkbox.

Steam is a form of spyware

No, it isn't. And no-one but Steam friends can observe anything AFAIK.

and that is how it gives you credit for achievements which we don't care about

I don't either - so just ignore them. No-one else can see your achievements unless you let them.

If Steam ever goes out of business some day as most companies do or changes hands, you would not be able to play the game anymore.

So clearly you should do everything you can to increase their business and prevent this!

What company would choose to decrease sales and lose even a small percentage of customers.

Almost every major game company, it turns out. Because they think they gain more sales from reduced piracy than they lose from pigheadedness.

 

[snowlyon]

Originally Posted by Chalks
No, the features provided by Steam are desired. Even if you don't personally care about mods and multiplayer, they are still desired by the majority. Even if you don't care about DRM, it's still desired by the publisher and you're off your head if you think they game will be released without it.

there it is again. please link a source showing the majority wanted steam, whether in general or for its "features" specifically related to CIV. heck...show me a thread on this site alone saying "man....I soooo hope they make CIV on steam for all the features". show me that somewhere dated prior to to all this on the CIV4 or CIV3 threads....prove to me that you are indeed in the majority regarding all of this.

problem is...you CANT prove this. I am not in arms saying the anti-steam crowd is the majority, except in this thread maybe....just that YOUR statement that the PRO-Steam group is the majority when it really isnt. we both are in the minority as I have mentioned. the majority of gamers don't give a rip in the least.~

 

[Chalks]

there it is again. please link a source showing the majority wanted steam, whether in general or for its "features" specifically related to CIV. heck...show me a thread on this site alone saying "man....I soooo hope they make CIV on steam for all the features". show me that somewhere dated prior to to all this on the CIV4 or CIV3 threads....prove to me that you are indeed in the majority regarding all of this.

problem is...you CANT prove this. I am not in arms saying the anti-steam crowd is the majority, except in this thread maybe....just that YOUR statement that the PRO-Steam group is the majority when it really isnt. we both are in the minority as I have mentioned. the majority of gamers don't give a rip in the least.~

Last reply to you now - don't get too upset.

You are apparently unable to distinguish between saying that people want the features provided by Steam and wanting Steam itself.

I'm not sure why this is. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe there's some deeper problem at play here. I cannot begin to describe how little I care about what your comprehension issue is.

You want proof of someone who wants the features provided by steam? If you go to the mod DB, there are several hundred thousand mod downloads. That's several hundred thousand instances of someone wanting one of the features provided by steam as it is currently integrated into the game.

Here's the cool part:

If you don't think this proves my point, then that simply means that you misunderstand what I am trying to say.

Now why don't you save a few keystrokes and digest that for a little bit, since I am really not particularly interested in trying to delve deep into the reasons why you are unable to understand the difference between being interested in a feature provided by a platform and interested in the platform itself.

I simply don't care. So don't waste your time.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Right! Most people have no issue with using Steam, or not, they just want to play Civ. So, what's the issue here?

I personally agree with you and as a SP Civ player likely won't use the added Steam features. I proposed an example that could be used to help decide the popularity of Steam with other players of Civ4.

This issue isn't the demand for Steam. Its whether the requirement for steam will significantly reduce the number of people who will use the game. It won't. Hence, its unreasonable to demand that 2K remove the steam requirement from its game.

You are addressing a new issue. Please see the post right above yours where I just said this to Chalks:

The issue you just brought up was not the issue I was attempting to address.

You claimed a majority opinion for support of Steam and asked for "any proof of your significance" for the opposing opinion. I offered the nearest equivalent as a means of adding actual data to the discussion.

If Steam is that popular then the Civ4 numbers should reflect that support.

Which is a useless number. Why would anyone who already had the game installed on their computer bother to somehow add it to their Steam portfolio?

If Steam really does add useful features (multi-system playability of saves, etc.) to Civ as is claimed over and over in many threads then it should be reflected by Civ4 players adding their game to Steam in order to access those features. Thus, not a useless number as it illuminates the demand for Steam and addresses the question of which side of the issue is really the claimed majority.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

No I am not! Jesus christ, what is wrong with you?

This thread got a bit confusing. Here is your Steam claim that I was referencing. Bold by me:

No, my assertion was that the majority of people would appreciate using mods, chat, multiplayer, contact lists or auto-updates.

====================

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

The number of people who bought the non steam version of 4 is in no way representative of the number of people who would have flat out refused to buy the game if it was steam only.

I was offering Civ4 as a means to determine the popularity of Steam. If the non-Steam buyers added Steam then that would give you some hard numbers to support your claim.

I, for example, bought a boxed copy of civ 4 rather than a steam version because as I said, it was not available on steam when it was first released.

Fair enough, so did I. So what do the numbers reflect since Civ4 has been on Steam? Are non-Steam buyers adding their older game to their Steam account? Are the Civ4 Steam buyers using the Steam features? I honestly don't know.

Say 1 million copies were sold through steam and 3 million copies were sold through physical copies. I then proceed to argue that the majority of those copies would have been bought anyway even if they came with steamworks and then we're back to square one.

Again, not the issue I was addressing. I offered Civ4 as an example from which we could learn the popularity of the added features of using Steam, in response to your claim at the top of this post.


EDIT- formatting.

 

[arstal]

That's a good point

If Steam truly added value, and Steam is free (which it is)- then why don't Civ owners move their game to Steam?

It's because most of us don't give a crap about the benefits, and do give a crap about the drawbacks- at least for a Civ game.

I'll grant that for some games Steam features are more useful then in other games. Civ 5 is not a game where the features will be wanted much except by a small minority. Therefore, Steam's main interaction with most of the playerbase will be as a nuisance DRM (for most people minor, but for some more- and honestly, for me a minor nuisance is enough for me to not pay full price)

 

[Chalks]

This thread got a bit confusing. Here is your Steam claim that I was referencing. Bold by me:

That's not about steam. Read it again. Over and over. Where is the word steam?

Go back and read the original context. The context was that ripping steam from the system and disabling all the features that it provides was OK because the majority of people are not interested in them.

My argument is that the majority of people are interested in those features.

The out of context quote that you have latched onto has nothing to do with steam. It is about the features you would lose if you ripped steam from the integration right now and did not spend time re-writing the features it provides from scratch.

 

[CivilizedTiger]

The out of context quote that you have latched onto has nothing to do with steam. It is about the features you would lose if you ripped steam from the integration right now and did not spend time re-writing the features it provides from scratch.

Ha... isn't it ironic that people would pull strawman fallacies on you... of all people?

Like what? What is less intrusive DRM than a one-time online authentication?

Torchlight's system in which you activate your game directly with Runic games, rather than through a third party system?

But anyway, no matter how you look at it, there is going to be some level of privacy and control one has to give up. I am not so certain anymore that that's so bad. I hate it, of course, and I hate the fact that one company can have control over many games you own, but... I put up with some privacy issues posed by battle net, for instance. Of course, I might get a great packet monitor and a draconic firewall and I might go with Steam afterall.

I still dislike the use of Steam, and no, it's not something with Steam per se, I have no experience with it, it's just something with being forced into a social gaming module which poses some issues for my privacy and control of my own games despite the fact that Civ is not a multiplayer game by excellence.

 

[Chalks]

Ha... isn't it ironic that people would pull strawman fallacies on you... of all people?

Yes, I apologise for that btw. My frustration makes me paraphrase excessively.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

That's not about steam. Read it again. Over and over. Where is the word steam?

Your quote again:

No, my assertion was that the majority of people would appreciate using mods, chat, multiplayer, contact lists or auto-updates.

This is a thread about Steam. Your posts are all about making claims in support of Steam. You listed the added features from Steam. Sorry if we assumed you actually meant Steam. I read the original context and you made a claim exactly as I posted it above.

My comments remain unchanged. An easy way to see if Civ players want the features of Steam is to see if the Civ4 non-Steam buyers added their game to Steam and if the Civ4 Steam buyers use their free Steam features.

If your claims are true you should be jumping at this opportunity to post some real numbers and show you are correct. If "the majority of people would appreciate using mods, chat, multiplayer, contact lists or auto-updates", then now is your chance to back your words with supporting data.

 

[Chalks]

This is a thread about Steam. Your posts are all about making claims in support of Steam. You listed the added features from Steam. Sorry if we assumed you actually meant Steam. I read the original context and you made a claim exactly as I posted it above.

You need to read the context. I repeated it for you. If you read that you will understand how you were mistaken. You can't just pick up on a single reply and extrapolate what I am saying, mid conversation.

My comments remain unchanged. An easy way to see if Civ players want the features of Steam is to see if the Civ4 non-Steam buyers added their game to Steam and if the Civ4 Steam buyers use their free Steam features.

If your claims are true you should be jumping at this opportunity to post some real numbers and show you are correct. If "the majority of people would appreciate using mods, chat, multiplayer, contact lists or auto-updates", then now is your chance to back your words with supporting data.

I don't really know how else to explain this to you. The Steam version of Civ 4 provides no additional features to the game. What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

 

[helpless_writer]

Its not different then how Gamestop gets exclusive deals. And really guys, this is a luxury... if you can't afford an internet connection then why are you paying for a game that costs upward $40.00?

I mean with how unsecured most people leave their wireless connections why is this a problem? Then considering how big some scenarios are that we don't use steam isn't taking up that much HD space. I don't see the big deal at all, plus if you don't like it there are alternatives.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

The Steam version of Civ 4 provides no additional features to the game.

Are you certain it has none of the items from your original claim? Why would Civ4 not include the normal extra features of Steam? I'm not going to purchase a game I already have just so I can find out, but your quote mentioned "mods, chat, multiplayer, contact lists or auto-updates".

Could someone who knows for sure confirm this?

1. Are there no Civ4 mods featured on Steam?
2. Does the Steam Civ4 not feature chat?
3. Is there no way to multiplayer via Steam?
4. Does the Steam Civ4 not allow a contact lists feature?
5. Does the Steam Civ4 not have an updates/auto-updates feature?