Steam Issues on Google=43.600.000+hits

[civ_king]

Microsoft issues yields 146,000,000

I guess we should stop using Windows

 

[Vordrax]

Sorry. Thought you were from the dark side of the force. Or am I from the dark side. Guess it's all subjective.

Not that I'm applying it at all to the current situation (being that I'm a big supporter of Steam and I can see why people don't want it, though I think their reasons for not liking it are flaky) but in the (in)famous Episode 3, it was rather difficult to take Anakin seriously when he said "From my perspective, it's the JEDI who are evil!" just shortly after murdering children <_<;

 

[tom2050]

Not that I'm applying it at all to the current situation (being that I'm a big supporter of Steam and I can see why people don't want it, though I think their reasons for not liking it are flaky) but in the (in)famous Episode 3, it was rather difficult to take Anakin seriously when he said "From my perspective, it's the JEDI who are evil!" just shortly after murdering children <_<;

The whole point is that requiring internet to install the game goes beyond what is needed; in that they should scrap that portion and keep requiring internet to update and patch the game.

That is a valid argument, and shows they are consumer friendly by not punishing or alienating users who have slow connections, no internet, problems with inability to play due to server probs on day 0, etc.

That is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point, so help me God.

 

[Vordrax]

The whole point is that requiring internet to install the game goes beyond what is needed; in that they should scrap that portion and keep requiring internet to update and patch the game.

That is a valid argument, and shows they are consumer friendly by not punishing or alienating users who have slow connections, no internet, problems with inability to play due to server probs on day 0, etc.

That is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point, so help me God.

Yes, but they can't scrap it, since it's part of the engine. I dare you to start a software development firm, build a game for 5 years, and then 4 months before it is scheduled to be release, tell your investors that you're scrapping middleware that you've licensed (after convincing them that it's great free advertising on a large platform, and that it allows you to distribute online without having to buy and maintain expensive servers, and that you don't have to waste a ton of programmer hours on writing needless networking functions) because a few people started complaining loudly about it on a forum- which happened with other games released on that same platform that sold spectacularly well despite their "boycotts."

I'm not trying to be obtuse in that regard or insulting, but really. Asking for it to be taken out is ridiculous, and shows ignorance of the software development process. Saying that you don't agree with the decision is fine, saying that you won't be buying it is fine. But bashing the platform with incredibly biased and poorly researched assertions (and I'm not saying you're doing this, but this is the general theme) and ignoring facts to the contrary and flaming anyone who disagrees is assuredly not fine.

And I'm sure if everyone who disagreed with Steam posted a single time saying "I don't like the idea and I won't buy it" instead of posting every 15 minutes, repeating the same complaints ad nauseum anytime boiling water is even casually mentioned, the situation wouldn't be as absurd as it is now. Because I can almost guarantee that no one in a decision-making situation cares one iota until the sales figures for the release are in their hands, and all the flaming does (on both sides) is ruin the forum.

EDIT: And I would like to add for clarification that I'm not attempting to bash or insult you so I apologize in advance if it was taken that way. As I said in the post you quoted, I already know why people don't WANT Steam. I think their reasons for not LIKING Steam are flaky, and are biased by internet politics because it's easier to use hyperbole than express a rational, well-researched opinion. When an argument happens regarding it, people who don't want Steam feel like they are forced to justify why they don't like Steam itself, and so they say ridiculous things about the platform. Then people who do like Steam are forced to justify why they like it, so they say ridiculous things about the people who are complaining.

 

[tom2050]

Agreed, and well stated. I am not familiar with Steam, or Impulse, or any other DRM method to any qualifying extent that would make me an expert. As most here are not unless they have extensive programming and DRM experience.

If Steam is not set up in a way where it allows a company to make it so only patches/upgrades require internet to download; and it is setup to where installation must be a part of the internet experience... I don't expect them to change it now.

I only hope the 2K PR member sees all of this, and perhaps takes note that many would be more happy with games not requiring internet to install. But if that is not an ability Steam can work around; maybe they will keep it in mind for upcoming games.

Yes, but they can't scrap it, since it's part of the engine. I dare you to start a software development firm, build a game for 5 years, and then 4 months before it is scheduled to be release, tell your investors that you're scrapping middleware that you've licensed (after convincing them that it's great free advertising on a large platform, and that it allows you to distribute online without having to buy and maintain expensive servers, and that you don't have to waste a ton of programmer hours on writing needless networking functions) because a few people started complaining loudly about it on a forum- which happened with other games released on that same platform that sold spectacularly well despite their "boycotts."

I'm not trying to be obtuse in that regard or insulting, but really. Asking for it to be taken out is ridiculous, and shows ignorance of the software development process. Saying that you don't agree with the decision is fine, saying that you won't be buying it is fine. But bashing the platform with incredibly biased and poorly researched assertions (and I'm not saying you're doing this, but this is the general theme) and ignoring facts to the contrary and flaming anyone who disagrees is assuredly not fine.

And I'm sure if everyone who disagreed with Steam posted a single time saying "I don't like the idea and I won't buy it" instead of posting every 15 minutes, repeating the same complaints ad nauseum anytime boiling water is even casually mentioned, the situation wouldn't be as absurd as it is now. Because I can almost guarantee that no one in a decision-making situation cares one iota until the sales figures for the release are in their hands, and all the flaming does (on both sides) is ruin the forum.

EDIT: And I would like to add for clarification that I'm not attempting to bash or insult you so I apologize in advance if it was taken that way. As I said in the post you quoted, I already know why people don't WANT Steam. I think their reasons for not LIKING Steam are flaky, and are biased by internet politics because it's easier to use hyperbole than express a rational, well-researched opinion. When an argument happens regarding it, people who don't want Steam feel like they are forced to justify why they don't like Steam itself, and so they say ridiculous things about the platform. Then people who do like Steam are forced to justify why they like it, so they say ridiculous things about the people who are complaining.

 

[Vordrax]

Agreed, and well stated. I am not familiar with Steam, or Impulse, or any other DRM method to any qualifying extent that would make me an expert. As most here are not unless they have extensive programming and DRM experience.

I'd like to believe I'm pretty well-versed in many of the DRM methods because I tend to rely on filesharing when I don't have a lot of money or when I'm not sure about a title and it doesn't have a demo (and in both cases, when I do have the money and I feel the software is worth paying for, I buy it - even if I don't play it after buying it because I was done with it before.) I believe in supporting good developers (and that doesn't mean just mainstream developers.) I can say that I hate a great deal of DRM because it tends to punish legitimate customers and does absolutely nothing for piracy, and in fact I've avoided buying many titles due solely to Starforce and SecuROM, because I despise registry-based DRM. I try to support indie games when I can, and I like to buy games from developers that have a stated stance against DRM (such as Stardock, though they still employ DRM in the form of registration, it's just that it's not invasive at all.)

I think many peoples' opinions on what constitutes DRM are skewed due, in part, to manufactured ignorance. This is because of a divergence of stated and actual purpose- publicly, publishers will tell you that DRM is to prevent piracy (which, historically, has proven to a solution with a potency ranging from poor to nonexistent.) In actuality, it is designed to prevent second-hand trading. Registry DRM SecuROM (and Starforce I think, I can't actually remember the last time I saw a game with it) tries to prevent the user from burning a copy of the game, or using a burnt copy or virtually mounted ISO. Registration DRM prevents certain features (such as patching) from functioning, or the entire software package if it changes hands. Login prevents multiple users from accessing the software simultaneously. CD-checks force the user to prove that they own a physical copy of the game.

But here's the thing- I'm not entirely opposed to DRM that prevents resale of games, because I don't sell my games. And that's where people are running into problems, due to this skew. I am opposed to DRM that hinders a users' use of the software (CD-checks and SecuROM) but I don't mind Registrations and Logins. This is where you'll find the opinion skew- Steam users, for the most part, don't mind registrations and logins because they are the closest you can get to the convenience of filesharing and still support the company (beyond no DRM entirely, which is usually the realm of Indie games, Open Source software, and donationware; mainstream titles with no DRM of any sort are either rare or nonexistent; even Stardock requires registration to patch.) The opposition lies on two sides, generally- those who are against using Steam because they simply don't feel that it should be necessary to install a third-party program to run a game (which I feel is a valid viewpoint), and those who despise it because they either don't understand how Steam works (the ones who say that it "steals personal information," which is blatant misinformation based on their inability to understand the privacy policy) or that they are opposed to "all" DRM (but will generally support Impulse, despite it being nearly identical to Steam other than Steam being required to run in the background, or they will support CD-checks despite them being even more obnoxious, and only tolerated because they've been grandfathered in.)

If you had questions, I hope I answered them somewhere in all that rambling.

EDIT: Oh I forgot to address:

Steam does possess an "offline" mode. However, as has been stated more eloquently (or at least in more words) in the past, it is not the ultimate panacea. It can and does have issues.