Steam - love or hate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No offense, but you are exactly their target market. They won!! :lol:

Offering unecessary goodies that we will, in the end, learn to appreciate, in exchange for a compulsory installation and total loyalty. We even benefit from good deals... on games we would never have bought to begin with. So they get more of our $$ : they win again.

Thank you from confirming what I and many always thought :p

Yes, I'm sure the poster you're addressing feels completely scammed about having been introduced to games he enjoyed but wasn't previously aware of that were offered at low prices.

Its not a zero-sum game. It is possible for a company to increase profits through providing a better service to consumers. The problem here is that one group of consumers are better served to the detriment of another group.
 
No offense, but you are exactly their target market. They won!! :lol:

Offering unecessary goodies that we will, in the end, learn to appreciate, in exchange for a compulsory installation and total loyalty. We even benefit from good deals... on games we would never have bought to begin with. So they get more of our $$ : they win again.

Thank you from confirming what I and many always thought :p

Or you could be completely wrong. Sure I've bought games on Steam (and other digital retailers like GamersGate, Impulse and Good Old Games) I wouldn't have bought otherwise and many I was interested in. Why? Because they were on sale and really, really cheap. I'm talking about getting 12 games for the price of one new game (give or take, I've paid less than $15 for the majority of games I buy now). Its a win-win situation for both sides, the customer saves money and gets the product they want (and maybe one they might not have bought and enjoyed otherwise), the publishers, developers and distributors (whether is Valve (Steam), Paradox (GamersGate), CD Projekt (Good Old Games), Stardock (Impulse)* or whoever) make a lot of sales due to the low prices, and thanks to the high numbers of sales get plenty of money, and those customers might go tell their friends how awesome game X is which generates more sales (and not always digitally, Valve noticed an increase in sales of Left 4 Dead in brick and mortar stores during and after a big sale on Steam for the game).

No one's forcing you to buy any of the sales though, so if you don't like it then don't buy it.

*Interesting thing about the 4 companies I listed, all of them game (for the most part anyways) really good games, are independent and are both developers and publishers.
 
Then do something that will actually get the change you want, start a campaign, post on the official forums where they are actually going to pay attention to you, and write them letters (e-mails too if you want, but they are far more likely to actually read a letter).

You are kidding us, right? Are you working for Steam or what is your problem? Stating your opinion in public and let your wallet do the talking is the only thing we can do! Is this a private chatroom? Have there never been any officials on these forums?? C'mon, now THAT is BS! your "suggestion" is exactly what we're doing here: 70+pages and rising!

And don't tell me ciV requires steamworks to work! Now really, I won't play the idiot:

ciVdevs whom I trusted said:
"There was really no other way! We were forced to use steamworks to get the game going! It's the only technology that does it and we did it for YOU! ...A big sloppy kiss to our fanbase and customers!..."
(*no real quote above - don't believe it!! :D *)

Thank you very much; don't wanna get kissed there by a company... You would believe that sh%$&, would you? No you probalby wouldn't either...
----
Back to specious arguments:

1. Multiplayer requires steamworks? It's not working and utterly broken (at least that's what most people in these forums state)! Good job!
2. Multiplayer has no other technology available to work? RIGHT! You can believe it but I won't!
3. No other DRM available? wrong! They could have done it differently but they didn't
4. It's ok if you like steam (which you obviously do)! REALLY, congratulations! But as 'poid said:

To those of you who like and appreciate Steam: good for you.
But is it so great for you, that we should all be _required_ to use it?

That's what it's all going down to: Why is it obligatory? They made it that way?!
That's not even an argument! And it's not a law of nature like "the earth is round - life with it!"
The devs and furthermore the distributor had a choice and they just figured " hey it's best to cut consumer rights and choices! The mass market won't mind"

Personally: I very much hope they're wrong!!! And I'm not going where THEY want me to go! period.
check my sig! :p

Moderator Action: Please try to refrain from suggesting (even in jest) that a person must work for a company to support the company (in this case, Steam).
 
You are kidding us, right? Stating your opinion in public and let your wallet do the talking is the only thing we can do! Is this a private chatroom? Have there never been any officials on these forums?? C'mon, now THAT is BS! your "suggestion" is exactly what we're doing here: 70+pages and rising!
Voting with your wallet is great and all, but when the game is clearly selling well its not going to have much of an effect. 2K Greg does check these forums yes, however iirc he only does that as part of his job and his time is limited. Also there's quite a bit of these 70+ pages that isn't asking 2K to remove Steam from Civ5 or whatever you want is.

Are you working for Steam or what is your problem?
Just because I'm not agreeing with everything you say does not make me crazy or somehow worse than you. Neither does it make me an employee of Valve, in fact I'm a full time college student without a job. Oh, FYI, when you start accusing people of working for another company it makes it look like you have run out of actual valid things to say.

And don't tell me ciV requires steamworks to work! Now really, I won't play the idiot:
You're only a fool if you don't accept that Civ5 has Steamworks built into it. It has been throughly explained to the best of several people's knowledge why Civ5 requires Steam, and I'm not going to explain that for a tenth time.

"There was really no other way! We were forced to use steamworks to get the game going! It's the only technology that does it and we did it for YOU! ...A big sloppy kiss to our fanbase and customers!..."

Thank you very much; don't wanna get kissed there by a company... You would believe that sh%$&, would you? No you probalby wouldn't either...
That is NOT what I and others have been saying. It isn't the only way it could have been done, but it is the way it was done and nothing beyond time travel is going to change that.

Back to specious arguments:
I think this statement is much more ironic than you thought it would be when you wrote it.

1. Multiplayer requires steamworks? It's not working and utterly broken (at least that's what most people in these forums state)! Good job!
From what I've seen, the part of multiplayer that isn't working is on Civ5/Firaxis' end. Steam is used for networking and various other things I don't know exactly.

2. Multiplayer has no other technology available to work? RIGHT! You can believe it but I won't!
You're the only one who has said that.

3. No other DRM available? wrong! They could have done it differently but they didn't
Again, you're the only one saying that...

4. It's ok if you like steam (which you obviously do)! REALLY, congratulations! But as 'poid said:
Anthropoid was answered numerous times. If he continues to ignore the facts because he doesn't like them that is his problem.


That's what it's all going down to: Why is it obligatory? They made it that way?!
Sure, close enough.

That's not even an argument!
No, its a fact.

Personally: I very much hope they're wrong!!! And I'm not going where THEY want me to go! period.
Then don't. It really doesn't matter to me if you use Steam or not.

check my sig! :p
Too many smilies for my taste but each to their own.
 
Scamp covered everything I wanted to say pretty well.

Civ 5 requires Steamworks. Why? Because the developer said so. Every other feature in a game is also there because the developer said so too. Don't take Steamworks to be a unique feature in that way.

Everyone here whining how Steam should not be obligatory is missing the point. It is, deal with it. You don't want to? Don't play the game. Vote with your wallet. It is just that simple. Like my funky car analogy on the last page, you can't have it both ways at the same time. This isn't Shrodingers Civ 5.
 
The problem is you can't tell a bunch of fans to act like rational consumers. The wires for I want/I don't want are crossed here and producing anomalous output.

Well quit behaving like children and think a bit. It may not be as amusing, and you might not get that satisfaction of a successful tantrum, but it would be a helluva lot more civilized and informed.

EDIT -- this is not directed at you, but more so at everyone in the thread.
 
sorry but - same here with Steam - You're not able to logon to two different PCs at the same time - So basically you logoff and logon on another PC where you physically have to go to... You're not allowed to SHARE one account of steam with several people..

I don't know what you mean by "allowed", but obviously there is no difficulty with having other family members play my Steam games. It works fine and doesn't cause any problems at all.

Furthermore, you're not responding to what I said. Even if I were the only one playing the games, being able to play on any of several computers, without having to carry a disc from place to place and constantly keep track of where it is, is a huge advantage. I can't count the number of times that I was in one place wanting to play Civ IV, and my disc was somewhere else.

You can like what you like, and dislike what you dislike. But to claim that Steam offers no advantages for consumers, is just false.
 
Voting with your wallet is great and all, but when the game is clearly selling well its not going to have much of an effect. 2K Greg does check these forums yes, however iirc he only does that as part of his job and his time is limited. Also there's quite a bit of these 70+ pages that isn't asking 2K to remove Steam from Civ5 or whatever you want is.

This. was what you suggested - this is what we did. What else is there to do? Nothin. If we just shut up - cVI might be a great game and agein it would be on steam because no one complaint - bad idea! Why are you defending steam? What would have been wrong with more choice for the customer? WHAT?

Just because I'm not agreeing with everything you say does not make me crazy or somehow worse than you.

Never said anything like that in any way...

Oh, FYI, when you start accusing people of working for another company it makes it look like you have run out of actual valid things to say.
*yawn* - I know you read the posts - Why do you decide to ignore them?


You're only a fool if you don't accept that Civ5 has Steamworks built into it. It has been throughly explained to the best of several people's knowledge why Civ5 requires Steam, and I'm not going to explain that for a tenth time.

Thank you for this one - I really can't read it even only once more!

That is NOT what I and others have been saying. It isn't the only way it could have been done, but it is the way it was done and nothing beyond time travel is going to change that.
Right - And that is exactly why I'll never possess a copy of ciV - Now, we're getting closer to understanding. ciV obviously isn't the game I wanted to have as an iteration. For me it's good that it's bad, otherwise I would have been even more angry about the fact they didn't leave us a CHOICE to get the game in a state I would like to buy it - And this is the one thing I won't explain for the tenth time...!


I think this statement is much more ironic than you thought it would be when you wrote it.
:faint:

From what I've seen, the part of multiplayer that isn't working is on Civ5/Firaxis' end. Steam is used for networking and various other things I don't know exactly.
It wasn't me, it was YOU who was claiming they used steamworks to get the multiplayer on the road (just a few posts ago). They didn't get it on the road - so this must have been en excuse to band freedom of choice for customers... Results count.


You're the only one who has said that. Again, you're the only one saying that...
The one thing you rewrite all of the time is that you need steam to run the game and its mandatory. If they made a different choice this thread would have never been opened, because steamer like you would happily get it from Valve and steam-h8ers like me would have gotten a choice to play the game nevertheless!


Anthropoid was answered numerous times. If he continues to ignore the facts because he doesn't like them that is his problem.

Great! some self-reflection would help you around here! I don't want to advocate YOU what to do! Accepting facts unchangeable is one thing (law of nature, remember) trying to fight wrong decisions made by companies to prevent future-ongoings is another one... This is why IMO YOU are the one who doesn't get it...


Then don't. It really doesn't matter to me if you use Steam or not.
and vice versa - :hatsoff:
but do you know who might thinks about this: The doe-greedy companies might do - If they figure they might make more bucks by giving choices (because I and other would buy a game that they didn't buy because of steam) That is the one and only reason why I'm here - I want my cVI and my other games without being dependent on any online site, company and so forth...

Too many smilies for my taste but each to their own.
It's not a comic - It was about the WORDS. :rolleyes:
 
This. was what you suggested - this is what we did. What else is there to do? Nothin. If we just shut up - cVI might be a great game and agein it would be on steam because no one complaint - bad idea! Why are you defending steam? What would have been wrong with more choice for the customer? WHAT?

Given that the game was shoved out the door somewhat too early as it is, what would have happened if they hadn't been able to build upon the Steam API for multiplayer? Do you think it would have been delayed or released in an even less finished state?
 
No offense, but you are exactly their target market. They won!! :lol:

No offense to you, but your "argument" is nonsense.

I am a PC Gamer, so yes, oddly enough, I buy PC games. (I'm just odd that way).

I'm playing a popular FPS game which I bought for the price of a fast food lunch.

Civ V isn't exactly in a playable state for me right now, so it is great to have some cheap alternatives in the meantime while we wait for patches.

The anti-steam argument just comes down to "it is evil because I said so".
 
Given that the game was shoved out the door somewhat too early as it is, what would have happened if they hadn't been able to build upon the Steam API for multiplayer? Do you think it would have been delayed or released in an even less finished state?
Quoting 2K website patch logs: "# The following crashes were all discovered via the Steam Crash Reporting system that Civilization V utilizes:" So at least steam helps fixing crashes.

hmm, dunno. To me the usage of steam is only because of utterly useless DRM - and everything else claimed by 2k or firaxis is just an excuse and nothing more. At least we can be sure API didn't prevent 2k from releasing the game without a functioning multiplayer - in which personally I'm not interested in at all.
cIV run through a great patching effort as well without the usage of steam - how did they do that... :hmm:

DaviddesJ said:
You can like what you like, and dislike what you dislike. But to claim that Steam offers no advantages for consumers, is just false.

Where do I say that? I'm just counteracting to your pro's. If it's a problem for you to keep track of where your game-discs are, steam might be helpful for you. To me that never was a problem. My problem is: They left us without a choice. Eat it or leave it! I don't like that. I'm very aware about data-protection and about the many approaches to cut consumer rights nowadays. It's not that I don't like the particular company valve - I don't like being extradited, -ever read googles terms and conditions? - Phew - I won't use chrome and googlemail if they pay me ten bucks to do it!
If I buy music, I go for a CD or mp3 and won't go in the i-tunes-store. WTF, I'm only able to put it on x devices and if I loose itunes due to crash it's not my file anymore and I have to rebuy? C'Mon... - (concerning this special point, valve is very generous and convenient - I'm not blind)..

Again - use steam if you like it but don't be blind when it comes to the why and how you are limited in your choices and freedom - And there are limitations (I won't point them out again - It has been done often enough previously).

This: WHY AM I FORCED TO USE IT IF I DON'T LIKE IT!? I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT CIV IF IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN STEAM-EXCLUSIVE!

This time I was lucky 'cause of the quality of the game wasn't as promised but next time I might be screwed. e.g. I'm not happy about Red Dead Redemption being exclusively for console as well. There's nothing I can do about it but STATE I would have bought a PC-version - I did that in their forum.
 
This. was what you suggested - this is what we did. What else is there to do? Nothin. If we just shut up - cVI might be a great game and agein it would be on steam because no one complaint - bad idea! Why are you defending steam? What would have been wrong with more choice for the customer? WHAT?
I gave you a viable alternative, send them letters, get other people to send them letters. It is hard to ignore it when the mailman drops off a few hundred letters, while it is comparatively easy to ignore forum posts.

Never said anything like that in any way...
Yes, you did... see next quote where you attack me for disagreeing with you.
You are kidding us, right? Are you working for Steam or what is your problem? Stating your opinion in public and let your wallet do the talking is the only thing we can do! Is this a private chatroom? Have there never been any officials on these forums?? C'mon, now THAT is BS! your "suggestion" is exactly what we're doing here: 70+pages and rising!

It wasn't me, it was YOU who was claiming they used steamworks to get the multiplayer on the road (just a few posts ago). They didn't get it on the road - so this must have been en excuse to band freedom of choice for customers... Results count.
And obviously you didn't actually read my posts, the vast majority (if not all) of the issues with multiplayer that I have seen are from the parts that Firaxis built themselves on top of the stuff provided by Steamworks.

The one thing you rewrite all of the time is that you need steam to run the game and its mandatory. If they made a different choice this thread would have never been opened, because steamer like you would happily get it from Valve and steam-h8ers like me would have gotten a choice to play the game nevertheless!

Thats because it IS mandatory because the game was built with Steamworks integrated into it, and as I said I am NOT explaining that again so at the bottom of this post there are several links to previous posts in this thread where it is throughly explained.

Great! some self-reflection would help you around here! I don't want to advocate YOU what to do! Accepting facts unchangeable is one thing (law of nature, remember) trying to fight wrong decisions made by companies to prevent future-ongoings is another one... This is why IMO YOU are the one who doesn't get it...
I'm pretty damn sure you are the one who doesn't understand.

This: WHY AM I FORCED TO USE IT IF I DON'T LIKE IT!? I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT CIV IF IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN STEAM-EXCLUSIVE!

Here are some of the links to previous posts explaining why Steam is required, please read them. If you still cannot understand why Civ5 requires Steam, then goodluck.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9844663&postcount=996

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9844847&postcount=999

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9843041&postcount=942

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9842873&postcount=933

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9828884&postcount=616

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9848358&postcount=1010

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9849041&postcount=1014

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9849489&postcount=1018

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9852352&postcount=1105

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10122027&postcount=1346

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10122466&postcount=1350

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10123406&postcount=1356

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10123466&postcount=1358

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10123939&postcount=1361

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10124196&postcount=1362

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10126060&postcount=1367

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10129818&highlight=steamworks#post10129818

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10138835&postcount=1451
 
Here are some of the links to previous posts explaining why Steam is required, please read them. If you still cannot understand why Civ5 requires Steam, then goodluck.

and this posts shall provide something like a "prove" - good luck :lol: You certainly know - mass doesn´t mean quality. And some of the posts are clearly unrelated to the topic they shall answer.

Steamworks is required because Valve or Take2 decided that it shall be a requirement. Nothing else - but also nothing less. And: do you remember: Football Manager 2010 (and it seems 2011) - steamworks optional game.
 
Steam is required because they are trying to sell you PC games. Plain and simple.

If you look at some of the deals I posted I find that not quite so "evil".
 
Steamworks is required because Valve or Take2 decided that it shall be a requirement. Nothing else - but also nothing less. And: do you remember: Football Manager 2010 (and it seems 2011) - steamworks optional game.
Football Manger isn't Civ5. I think FM only uses Steam for the same things any non-Steam game that is also offered on Steam does, which are patching, achievements and not requiring the DVD to be in the DVD drive when playing.So really isn't any different than most non-steam games offered on Steam.

http://www.sega.com/fm10/manual/?q=books/13-installing-football-manager™-2010

Meanwhile Steamworks is heavily integrated into Civ5 for various features and multiplayer.
 
Football Manger isn't Civ5. I think FM only uses Steam for the same things any non-Steam game that is also offered on Steam does, which are patching, achievements and not requiring the DVD to be in the DVD drive when playing.So really isn't any different than most non-steam games offered on Steam.

http://www.sega.com/fm10/manual/?q=books/13-installing-football-manager™-2010

Meanwhile Steamworks is heavily integrated into Civ5 for various features and multiplayer.
You know, I respected your opinion, because I thought you argued your points fairly well, but after this post I see you're just trolling.

Moderator Action: Please don't accuse others of trolling.
 
Meanwhile Steamworks is heavily integrated into Civ5 for various features and multiplayer.

I never said the FM10 is civ5, or? But i think we both only guess how deep the steam implementation in FM10 is, or? Exactly the same like we can only guess how deep steamworks is really integrated in civ5.

Certain features - which are used by civ5 - should be still easily made optional. Others - like the drm and microtransaction part - now not. But looking at the steamworks feature - beside the mulitplayer part - most of them are additional features and not really key features of a game.

So please specifiy the "various features"* - which are so important for civ5 gameplay - that they can´t made optional. [and afterwards we will again discuss, that some of them if making optional will cost money - and it´s therefore unlikely / unreasonable - or not ...]

* auto-patching, DRM, additional content (DLC - for free or fee) and archivements are part of the steamworks features FM10 uses - so i think it would be fair, not to include them in this list

@ Kerosene31

Not everybody who don´t want to use Steam, think Valve or Steam is "evil". It´s only something they don´t want ot use.

If someone would really think steam is "evil", he/she would "fight" for a steamfree world - which is quite a different position from wanting the choice to use or not use steam (beside the obligatory: don´t buy the games which use steamworks ...).
 
You know, I respected your opinion, because I thought you argued your points fairly well, but after this post I see you're just trolling.

I'm glad you respected your option, thank you, but I don't see how that post is any way, shape, or form trolling. Please believe me, I am not trying to troll anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom