Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,601
3rd party apps that have been proven to be trading user's information.
Like Zynga.
3rd party apps that have been proven to be trading user's information.
Sorry but it's not 2004 when every game is drm free like civ4. You're comparing Steam with draconic EA DRMs here, not old DOS games. Steam is the best and the most trustworthy distribution tool I can think of right now so if you hate steam, you will hate even more for future releases. I recently grabbed a new PC and am so glad I could install all of my games with a few clicks. I could also get a civ4 complete for whopping 10 bucks and gift it to my friend so that we could play along. All of this for what..about 7mb of ram occupation? I'm satisfied to have it.
Civ4 did have DRM. But you didnt even notice it, so i guess we can say it was better than steam as a form of DRM.
I find steam a much easier option than digging out the physical DVD to put in the drive.
That does, however, mean the developers have to release two patches, one of Steam and then have their own hosting and patch for the non-Steam copies (with no idea how many people are actually not using Steam). Simpler just to make everyone use Steam.
Cool. But what does that have to do with anything?
If linking the update files via FTP or HTTP is too hard for either steam or firaxis, then the fail runs much deeper and i must find a different place for a strategy game
Do you really think firaxis makes an update patch, sends it over to steam, who does voodoo on it to make it steam-ized?
Oh I noticed it, I noticed it quite a bit when if failed spectacularly and refused to acknowledge that I had the game disc in the drive. Just like the copy protection on XIII, Freedom Force, Call of Duty, and Call of Duty 2. Good thing I have the internet (although in the case of XIII, Ubisoft was nice enough to send me a DRM-less .exe themselves.... what happened Ubisoft?).Civ4 did have DRM. But you didnt even notice it, so i guess we can say it was better than steam as a form of DRM. You say its the best distribution tool, but youre comparing it as a drm in the sentence before.
Civ4 did have DRM. But you didnt even notice it, so i guess we can say it was better than steam as a form of DRM. You say its the best distribution tool, but youre comparing it as a drm in the sentence before.
The .exe file is different between non-steam and steam versions. I have no idea how much more work (it may take 10 minutes it may take hours) but it still means more work (hey, time is money). It also costs more and requires someone to do more work to go about hosting the non-steam patch (bandwidth/server costs).
Exactly. I don't think steam's DRM is any more prohibitting or conceiving than that of Civ4's either. I see Steam as a distribution tool rather than a way of applying DRM as there are many programs that do hell of a better job at that.
I agree that it would have been better to let gamers choose whether they want Steam or not. However I'm simply trying to convince that being forced to use Steam isn't that harmful at all like many believe and in fact it provides many convinient features as a distribution tool.
I had never purposely installed a backdoor for somebody else to use on my system, until Civilization V came out.
Would you all be defending K-mart if they had cheap sales on games, they delivered them via the net, but you had to have a K-mart shopping app forced down your throats to play the games?
plant a spy file that sometimes cannot be removed via hard format
I don't really think the claim is that absurd. Retail shelf space hasn't been kind to PC gaming and Steam has lead the way in alternate distribution.
The claim is a little blanket and overstated, but it isn't flat-out absurd.
Still, even this argument I find questionable. How are you to know the cause-and-effect isn't the other way round? Digital sales start to rise... PC game sales in stores drop... Prices of PC games in those stores therefore drop... Selling PC games become less attractive in those stores due to lower sales prices for same shelf space... PC games end up being poorly organised in stores.
I don't know, but I very little strength (i.e. convincing evidence) to the argument that steam is somehow saving pc gaming. Probably there are all sorts of feedback loops going on. The main thing Steam has done is increase the popularity or awareness of digital distribution. Overall the presence of digital distribution methods in the games market drives prices down for all vendors, even though steam's often aren't the cheapest until well after release. There may be more pc games sold now, but it's probably at a lower price on average. I'm not sure this is good or bad when you get back to the actual developers and publishers. Certainly if you're Valve, it's a good thing.