Steam - love or hate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets have some proof that Steam provides greater piracy prevention to the publisher and developer before we conclude that it actually serves that function eh? I know Valve would like everyone to believe that, but what proof is there?

I don't care about piracy prevention. If it offers a layer of protection, great. I like Steam for the convenience and service it provides to me.

Regardless, I am sure that Valve and Firaxis know more about piracy prevention than you, me, and the majority of people that post here. If you have a demand of proof, you are best served to go search for it elsewhere. Your search capabilities work just like the rest of ours.
 
Here. I spent 1 minute for you. There are tons of articles and information on the topic.

http://rickatnight11.com/?p=239

Particularly of interest (read the entire article for details):
Why did I stop pirating video games…?
After much thought and introspection I have come to the conclusion that Steam has finally won me over. Granted, I’ve been using Steam for a long time, while still actively pirating games. I believe the catalyst appeared three months ago when I wanted to play GTA IV. I’ve loved GTA3 – San Andreas, and I was excited to finally give IV a try. (The last time I tried it, I wasn’t in a GTA mood, and I forgot about it for over a year. Ironically I pirated it on this occasion.) I couldn’t find my downloaded copy of GTA IV anywhere, and I just so happened to have some extra cash in my bank account. I noticed that Steam was selling GTA IV for $20 (yes, I realize that it was only $7 this past weekend; I almost cried). “What the hell?” I thought. ”I can be a constructive member of society.” So I purchased the first game I could remember.

This was obtained from another interesting article here: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/28/5-lessons-from-steam-for-all-content-creators/

In summary, and BEYOND the DRM, it offers convenience, even to reformed and reforming pirates. Amazing.
 
I've been using steam ever since Half-Life 1. I have to say that I'm not fan of the interface, it's slow, unresponsive, and crashes often. That said there are some things I like about steam as well. It has superior multi-player connectivity (admit it or not), it saves you time and space (physical space) as you aren't cluttered with countless CD's of every game you buy, and last but not least its an excellent way of delivering patches and additional content. Remember, this is just MY opinion, I'm probably asking for it just by posting in this thread. :rolleyes:

Edit: As far as piracy protection goes... Steam is no more effective then an anti-piracy watermark. If you don't believe me, just do a quick torrent search of "Civ 5","Empire: Total War", or any game that "requires steam to play".
 
Here. I spent 1 minute for you. There are tons of articles and information on the topic.

http://rickatnight11.com/?p=239

Particularly of interest (read the entire article for details):


This was obtained from another interesting article here: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/28/5-lessons-from-steam-for-all-content-creators/

In summary, and BEYOND the DRM, it offers convenience, even to reformed and reforming pirates. Amazing.

How do we know that guy is not a Valve confederate?

Proof to me would be something like an independent market research firm doing a study of some sort.

This is why I remain committed to my boycott of Steam: they sell themselves based on unproven principles to the publishers and to me. If they want to claim they are better for piracy prevention or more convenient then they should be handy with the proof.

ADDIT: otherwise, they and their client game publishers don't 'get my money! ;) _and_ I reserve my freedom of speech to be active in voicing my view on forums like this.

Unless of course the "one-thread for all criticism despots" manage to take over CivFanatics ;)
 
How do we know that guy is not a Valve confederate?

This is basically really the point where it becomes silly to even continue talking.

I mean, really, it should have been a couple of pages ago when people were accusing some posters here of being Valve employees, but this is just silly.
 
In sum, Steam has a basic dimension that is convenient: being digital DL. But it also has many features that make it annoying. Since Gamersgate, and others (Matrix, Good Old Games, etc.) offer the same convenience without the annoyance, why would I even consider joining Steam?

Because you want to play a steam exclusive. Same as needing an Xbox if you want to pay halo, or a playstation for the newest gran turismo. A strategic decision was made by the higher ups that they'd be better off requiring steam, and that's the world you have to live in. I think that in Valve's metaphorical subconscious, they're positioning themselves to be compared to Xbox live and PSN, but on pc instead.
 
Edit: As far as piracy protection goes... Steam is no more effective then an anti-piracy watermark. If you don't believe me, just do a quick torrent search of "Civ 5","Empire: Total War", or any game that "requires steam to play".

You should try downloading those said games. I have. It's a pain the ass to get them to work properly, and even then you can't patch them because patches are released through Steam and not the good old fashioned .exe we knew and loved.

In fact, I have Nap:TW on my PC right now, a cracked Steam version. It's simply not worth playing because the release version is crap. Not to mention multiplayer doesn't work and even getting that to work is a major hassle (I tried).
Moderator Action: We don't have any tolerance for piracy in this forum!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Right now, I'll wait a good few months before I buy Nap. And until I'm sure it's been patched up properly.

So, in regards to newer games that operate like Civ5, Nap, etc, you're argument doesn't really work. Sure, you can get the games illegally, but it requires above average computer know-how that, let's face it, most people don't have.
 
How do we know that guy is not a Valve confederate?

Proof to me would be something like an independent market research firm doing a study of some sort.

This is why I remain committed to my boycott of Steam: they sell themselves based on unproven principles to the publishers and to me. If they want to claim they are better for piracy prevention or more convenient then they should be handy with the proof.

ADDIT: otherwise, they and their client game publishers don't 'get my money! ;) _and_ I reserve my freedom of speech to be active in voicing my view on forums like this.

Unless of course the "one-thread for all criticism despots" manage to take over CivFanatics ;)

I didn't have to search for anything, but I did anyhow. You're welcome.

FYI, I don't need to prove anything to you. And even if I spend time preparing something for you, I would expect the same response from you. I provided you with two simple items for your perusal. Use them if you like. I really don't care.

You have the ability to educate yourself by doing your own research. There is infinite information out there.

By the way, how do we know that you aren't an employee of Impulse or Direct2Drive simply here to flame Steam? Your own argument works against you here, no matter how vocal and adamant you get.
Moderator Action: Trolling is not allowed in this forum.
 
What I think is interesting is that for whatever reasoning management decided to make Steam a requirement, they are willing to risk alienating their dedicated fans. I saw how you guys flamed Onedreamer a few pages back...but the story there is that a dedicated fan of the Civ franchise was lost. The designers of this game decided to make it Civ V and not some new strategy game with a new name. The purpose of making a sequel is to cash in on the currency of the dedicated fan community built up around the franchise. While Steam may appeal to some people, it clearly does not appeal to all people. It also doesn't seem to work well for all people. If I were part of the management team at Firaxis or Take 2, I would take notice of how the dedicated fans of the franchise are reacting to the decision. Onedreamer joined this fan forum earlier and has more posts than all of the Steam fanboys Moderator Action: Derogative labels are not allowed in this forum. in this thread combined. His opinion (and other dedicated players) is (or at least should be) worth a lot.
 
What I think is interesting is that for whatever reasoning management decided to make Steam a requirement, they are willing to risk alienating their dedicated fans. I saw how you guys flamed Onedreamer a few pages back...but the story there is that a dedicated fan of the Civ franchise was lost. The designers of this game decided to make it Civ V and not some new strategy game with a new name. The purpose of making a sequel is to cash in on the currency of the dedicated fan community built up around the franchise. While Steam may appeal to some people, it clearly does not appeal to all people. It also doesn't seem to work well for all people. If I were part of the management team at Firaxis or Take 2, I would take notice of how the dedicated fans of the franchise are reacting to the decision. Onedreamer joined this fan forum earlier and has more posts than all of the Steam fanboys in this thread combined. His opinion (and other dedicated players) is (or at least should be) worth a lot.

You can say the exact same thing about 1upt, or any other change. And for every game. In Civ 4, they changed things, and there were 'dedicated fans who were alienated.'

Read through what you just wrote and pretend it's about anything else other than Steam, and it still works.
 
Why would it be surprising for an online retailer to have folks monitoring and even responding in a forum like this? There is evidence that firms that ignore online social media do so at their peril.

"Damage Control"
Marketing Magazine; 6/1/2009, Vol. 114 Issue 11, Special Page p5-5
The article offers the author's views on the importance of social media to the public relations of a company. He states that social media has the power to ruin the public image of a company or can promote it. He cites that a company should give time to understand social media and make a quick response, whenever an issue is published in the online community, because issue such as customer complaint should be answered at the right time..

Social media can rapidly turn into either a public relations dream or a nightmare. An employee with a cell phone, a company that fails to listen or ignores its online customers can quickly become tomorrow's headline.

Last November, Motrin made a public apology and pulled an online video aimed at mothers who had back pain from carrying their babies in a sling. In mid-April Amazon found itself apologizing for both removing sales rankings and searchability for gay and lesbian books, and for not apologizing fast enough. That same week a YouTube video made by two Domino's Pizza employees showing one sticking cheese up his nose and popping nasal mucus into food hit a million viewings within two days of its posting.

"We got blindsided by two idiots with a video camera and an awful idea," a Domino's spokesperson told The New York Times. Many thought the response was too late.

Two days after the video was posted, Domino's created a Twitter account and a YouTube video with Domino's USA president Patrick Doyle doing damage control. "There is nothing more sacred to us than our customer's trust," he told viewers. "It is not a surprise that this has caused a lot of damage to our brand." Domino's, he said, would reexamine its hiring practices.

Greg Power, senior vice-president and general manager for Optimum in Toronto, says it's extremely important that marketers listen to what's being said about their brands in the social media sphere. "When an issue starts, we're able to see it before it escalates out of control and we already have some relationships online because people know and trust us."

One way to avoid being the lead brand-destroying story on the 6 o'clock news is to understand social media and act fast. "In the traditional crisis, responding in a few hours is extremely quick, but online a few hours is a long time and a day online is a very long time," he says. "The one thing you need to do when you have a crisis is show you are aware of it, that you are taking steps to protect the public and that you are taking steps to prevent that from happening again."

Bush, Michael mbush@adage.com.
Source:Advertising Age; 6/21/2010, Vol. 81 Issue 25, p2-30, 2p.
Document Type:Article.
Subject Terms:*INTERNET marketing
*CUSTOMER relations -- Management
*RELATIONSHIP marketing
*CONSUMER complaints
*MANAGEMENT
BLOGS
ONLINE social networks.
NAICS/Industry Codes :519130 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
Abstract:The article examines the effect of the Internet on customer relations by corporations. The intense interest among corporations in so-called social media such as blogs and online social networks for marketing purposes has resulted in some consumers finding that a complaint about a company posted on the Internet will bring a quicker and more satisfactory response than if they had complained directly to the firm itself..
Full Text Word Count:967.
ISSN:0001-8899.
Accession Number:51603656.
Persistent link to this record (Permalink):http://silk.library.umass.edu:2048/...e&db=buh&AN=51603656&site=bsi-live&scope=site.
Database: Business Source Premier.
HTML Full TextAre major marketers training John Q. Public to whine on web?
Section: NEWS Consumers might be learning that an angry tweet gets a faster response from corporate America than a quiet phone call to resolve the problem

In January 2009, a disgruntled JetBlue customer was slapped with a $50 fee for checking a box containing a fold-up bicycle, clothes and some cheese. The box met the height and weight requirements to keep it from warranting a baggage fee, but JetBlue's policy for checking a bicycle, no matter the size, called for a $50 charge.

The angry passenger called the airline's customer service center but was repeatedly told it was company policy and that no exceptions would be made. After getting back to Portland, Ore., he took his fight public in a blog post on the Bicycle Transportation Alliance's website.

Then it was picked up by Twitter.

Within three days JetBlue called the cyclist back to tell him the $50 charge had been reversed and that it was changing its policy. "I have a great deal of respect for a company that is capable of recognizing an error and working quickly to fix it," wrote the cyclist. The resolution of the saga was picked up in the bike blogosphere and Consumerist.

Not every tweet, blog post or Facebook status update involving a complaint about a company is going to generate this type of reaction, though it's fast becoming the norm thanks to leaders in social-media responsiveness such as JetBlue, Virgin America, Comcast, UPS and Southwest. "We find customers are a bit surprised that we were interested and we paid attention," said Debbie Curtis-Magley, PR manager at UPS. "It gives people a sense of not just talking to a big corporation but individuals."

But magically resolving complaints broadcast to the world by social media raises a question: By rewarding complainers with lightning-fast responsiveness, are marketers training consumers to publicly flog them rather than take the discreet and often-frustrating route of calling customer service? Or, stated in Twitter terms, @webwhiners vs. #phonetreefail?

Pete Blackshaw, exec VP of Nielsen Online Digital Strategic Services and author of "Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000," thinks so. "The consumer sees two completely different faces, and ultimately that kills credibility, erodes equity and more."

Jenni Moyer, senior director-corporate communications at Comcast, said that the consumers that are communicating with online do so mainly because they aren't the type to pick up the phone in the first place. "Some of these folks are the type who would not pick up the phone to begin with. We try to communicate with them in the manner which they most prefer. The vast majority of our customers communicate with us via more traditional channels like phone and e-mail."

Comcast, in fact, is often regarded as a good illustration of a company joining the online conversation to manage customer service, a practice that Ms. Moyer dates back to 2007. Some of those initial conversations were far from positive, as evidenced by Ad Age Editor at Large Bob Garfield's self-professed "jihad" with his now defunct "Comcast Must Die" blog.

Things have changed a lot since then at the country's largest cable provider which began tweeting in 2008 to resolve customer complaints in 140 characters or less. "In 2009 we saw an increase of 9.3% in our American Customer Satisfaction Index," she said. "We made overall improvements in all categories but most notably in the customer-service category, the biggest driver of satisfaction, and they talked about our efforts in the social-media space helping to improve satisfaction and perception."

Marty St. George, senior VP-marketing and commercial strategy for JetBlue, said the airline finds it more efficient to deal with complaints through Twitter versus having someone contact its call center. The efficiency also lends itself to consumers, he said. "Think about the mechanics of getting the 800-number, getting on the phone, talking to the person and getting to the right customer-service person," Mr. St. George said. "From a cost perspective, one person on a Twitter desk can handle four of five people at once versus a bank of representatives on phones dealing with one customer at a time."

Even so, he said, "we don't consider our Twitter account to be a customer-service channel; we like to think of it as an information booth to effectively process and redirect customer to the best resources available. We will always do what we can to better serve each and every customer, regardless of the way they approach us (or their number of followers)."

Still, it simply makes sense that a prominent person-or a very influential one-on Twitter might get a faster response than one who doesn't (see The Media Guy, P. 3).

Porter Gale, VP marketing of Virgin America, who recently helped a customer book tickets after seeing them tweet about having trouble finding a flight, does not buy the argument that being responsive via social media encourages online grousing. "We have the same guest-service protocol for issues on social media as we do via phone and e-mail, meaning that if you have a real customer-service issue, our social-media team is direct messaging the customer and then connecting them through our normal guest-service channels."

Mr. Blackshaw, however, maintains that there is "a massive 'conversational divide' emerging right now between marketing and operations, aggravated by social media. Marketers are setting sky-high expectations with consumers about listening, engagement, and the value of feedback-often in the name of quick-set-up Twitter accounts and Facebook fan pages-while the operations folks who staff call centers or manage internal CRM systems are begging for scraps."

Maybe rather than beg they should tweet.
 
Edit: In reply to Mesix
This isn't about 2K's decision to use Steam, its about whether or not we like Steam. I'm sure Firaxis/2K are completely competent at realizing the impact of changing their formula for success. If they were looking to just "cash-in" on the franchise success, I doubt they would've made so many drastic gameplay changes along with bundling with Steam. Basically there's a lot more to point at in terms of "alienating" the fan base than the Steam requirement. Like, you know, the game itself.

I'm also not sure why everyone is pointing fingers at Firaxis. All they do is develop the game. I'd be willing to bet that had little to no involvement with the decision to use Steam. That would be on the publisher, 2K games. If I'm greatly mistaken, please correct me.

Really what it comes down to is 2K making an attempt to control piracy. Why should I care if it worked? It's not affecting my bottom line. Steam is a very progressive form of DRM and I prefer it 100 times over the draconian methods used recently by Ubisoft and other 2K Games. Really you should all see this as 2K saying "Hey, everyone was super pissed about that crap we put in Bioshock. Maybe we should look into something different." They did their research, they found millions (yes, 2.6+ million) of gamers use Steam and they went with it. And I am all the more grateful, because I probably would've never played Civ if I hadn't noticed the ad on Steam, checked out the demo and videos on Steam, and bought it through Steam without leaving my chair.
 
Can someone tell me what exactly about Steam makes it intrusive or invasive?

The fact that it runs even when you do not want to? The fact that is sends out data even in offline mode? The fact that you have no idea what these data are?
 
The fact that it runs even when you do not want to? The fact that is sends out data even in offline mode? The fact that you have no idea what these data are?
There is a word for that in the IT Security field...it is called SPYWARE.
 
It was either this or some other invasive DRM. Pick your poison.

Like Paradox games being sold without any DRM or requiring a simple input of email and code? Or Bioware games where you even do not notice any DRM (until you put the DVD out of drive?). Sorry, but for me a simple DRM always wins against any program that installs to my PC and does who knows what. As I mentioned, I used to check if the game I want to buy has Starforce, now I am checking if it does have a Steam.
 
This is basically really the point where it becomes silly to even continue talking.

I mean, really, it should have been a couple of pages ago when people were accusing some posters here of being Valve employees, but this is just silly.

Exactly .. Whats the age of these posters?? Pre Skool Moderator Action: Don't insult other forum members!
 
The fact that it runs even when you do not want to? The fact that is sends out data even in offline mode? The fact that you have no idea what these data are?

I have no problems with shutting down Steam when I need to. My apologies if you have a problem doing this.

Right click the desktop icon and select to exit Stem and tada! Steam.exe is no more.

 
Since I got my game through Steam, I'm not familiar with what happens when you install and you don't have Steam already. Does it tell you that they are going to install a piece of 3rd party software that you must register with to authenticate your game, before installing anything? Does it give you the option to cancel your installation? If so, then Steam is not spyware. If you did not want Steam, you should've cancelled the installation and returned the game asap. Vote with your wallet.

Again, Steam is in no way Spyware:
- It does not "run when you don't want it to". You start a game, Steam starts. You can exit Steam whenever you want and it will not just reappear. You can set it not to start up at windows logon (I think. I generally boot up just to play games so I always have Steam start).
- It might be sending out packets when you're in offline mode, probably attempting to check for updates or authenticate. But we don't know so speculation is pointless. If you were TRULY offline, it doesn't matter either way cause its not going to create an internet out of nothing to send all of your important information back to the mothership.
- You can uninstall it incredibly easily if you have any working knowledge of your OS. Sure they may not package it with an Uninstall Steam option, but that doesn't mean its on your PC forever. Once it's gone, its gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom