Steam - love or hate?

[DaviddesJ]

Since Gamersgate, and others (Matrix, Good Old Games, etc.) offer the same convenience without the annoyance, why would I even consider joining Steam?

I've bought games from GamersGate in the past and found their system much less convenient and user-friendly. That's why I don't use it any more.

 

[Anthropoid]

Steam is generally a pain in the backside. However, it might be slowly getting less painful. I definitely can do without it. I certainly hope that there isn't a trend developing for game companies to release their games through Steam (or similar sites).

I share your concerns, which is precisely why I am participating and taking the time to express my views.

If nothing else, Firaxis and 2K should be aware that they lost some of us as loyal customers, and not deluded by outspoken Steam advocates into thinking that everything is hunky-dory.

I would not like to see Steam become more common, unless of course they change their business model (which I honestly don't see them doing). If they were to take some of the annoying and intrusive dimensions of their service out (namely the required online reactivation process) then I would be willing to give them a try again. At that point they wouldn't differ from Gamersgate, etc., and given the other features they offer, then why wouldn't I want to try them out?

But, Steam changing is not going to happen if they do not perceive backlash, or rather if 2K/Firaxis in this case do not perceive backlash.

I for example, am presently boycotting Fallout New Vegas, and Civ 5 for no reason other than that they are Steam compulsory. I would buy FONV in a heart beat if it was not requiring Steam. Civ 5 seems a bit less promising as a game, so I might be a bit delayed there, but since it is one of my favorite game series ever (I used to be an absolutely devoted Civ fanboy, no doubt about it) I would certainly be prone to buy it if not for Steam required.

I never tried Empire Total War; that one sounded problematic, but the Steam requirement was really the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I am also planning to boycott the new TES game, and any other game in the future that requires Steam.

On the other hand, I bought Vicky2 IMMEDIATELY when it was released. It still needed patching and I knew it would. That didn't matter to me; not only did I want to play the game, but I wanted to do what I can to support Paradox and indirectly to encourage publishers who do not resort to Steam or worse yet DRM.

When I see that Steam has reformed and is no more intrusive, annoying or manipulative of consumers than say Gamersgate, I will halt my boycott and happily support Valve and the publishers/developers. Bethesda, Firaxis, Slitherine, Stardock, Matrix, Valve, Paradox, Nitro, etc., they _all_ make good games, and because I am a devoted gamer, I'm happy to do what I can to support all of them for providing us with great games. But NOT if they resort to Steam as it is presently incarnated. This sort of behavior should not be encouraged, and I realize that there are probably many participating in this thread who see it differently.

My goal, and the only reason I'm continuing to post here, is to get this message across and not have it drowned out by the dismissive, belittling of those of us who have this perspective combined with the outspoken advocacy of Steam.

At the end of the day, I'm just one guy; but if they hear one guy, maybe then they will look around and see the signs that I see, that it isn't just one guy, it is a bunch of guys. A large enough bunch of guys = substantial loss of profits.

 

[Jharii]

"Fanboy" is harmless enough. If someone intends to use it as such, just treat it as a compliment to the target of the "fanboy" since the person using the term obviously believes that the company must be good enough to attract "fanboys."

 

[Jharii]

At the end of the day, I'm just one guy; but if they hear one guy, maybe then they will look around and see the signs that I see, that it isn't just one guy, it is a bunch of guys. A large enough bunch of guys = substantial loss of profits.

From the Steam Wiki:
As of 2010, there are over 1,200 games available through Steam, and over 30 million active user accounts. Although Valve never releases sales figures, Steam is estimated to have a 70% share of the digital distribution market for video games.

Good luck to you. That's a pretty enormous mountain to climb, even if it is only estimated as enormous.

 

[Fistalis]

I've bought games from GamersGate in the past and found their system much less convenient and user-friendly. That's why I don't use it any more.

Which really comes down to a persons particular needs/wants for a system. For players lacking always on internet or who simply don't want a 3rd party program running to play their games almost all the alternatives are more friendly than steam.

 

[Drakarska]

Don't worry, I may be young, but I'm sure I've been exposed to worse things.

I also clearly stated "I wonder if it has something to do" and "IMO (key words here being IMO)" and I meant those lines sincerely.

But, being a "youngling" I suppose I would have an easier time seeing such things, as you yourself labelled me as.

But I appreciate your links anyway. I just don't think they're enough to change my mind.

My apologies for the labeling, sometimes my sense of humor gets the best of me. Especially when I see "your to old to change" card tossed out there. No offense was meant. TBH, I fully appreciate your view point ( in a rather wry, amusing way), since my oldest is firmly convinced of the same thing.
Ironically, I was similiar to that view when I was that age as well. Funny how things change when you actually start to accumilate a different perspective as you progress in life.

 

[DaviddesJ]

"Fanboy" is harmless enough. If someone intends to use it as such, just treat it as a compliment to the target of the "fanboy" since the person using the term obviously believes that the company must be good enough to attract "fanboys."

Even if you think that calling someone a "fan" is not dismissive and doesn't imply a lack of objectivity and judgment, surely calling someone a "boy" implies their opinions are juvenile and immature.

 

[Drakarska]

From the Steam Wiki:
As of 2010, there are over 1,200 games available through Steam, and over 30 million active user accounts. Although Valve never releases sales figures, Steam is estimated to have a 70% share of the digital distribution market for video games.

Good luck to you. That's a pretty enormous mountain to climb, even if it is only estimated as enormous.

Ok, so here's a fair question for you bro ( at least I think it's fair). Of those 30 mil accts, how many of them are REQUIRED? I. E. in order to play the game people want to play, how many of those accts are needed to do so?

I'm not agitating for any extra details, just a straight simple answer to my question. How many of those accts are there because they have to be.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If nothing else, Firaxis and 2K should be aware that they lost some of us as loyal customers, and not deluded by outspoken Steam advocates into thinking that everything is hunky-dory.

Can't they just count their sales to see what the public thinks? I'm not convinced they are affected in any way by your posting here.

My goal, and the only reason I'm continuing to post here, is to get this message across and not have it drowned out by the dismissive, belittling of those of us who have this perspective combined with the outspoken advocacy of Steam.

This is all in your head. There is no dismissive belittling or outspoken advocacy. The original topic of the thread was for people to comment on why they like or dislike Steam. When people say they like it, they aren't trying to get you to like it, they are just saying what they like. The problem with this "debate" is that it has two sides, one side says, "I like Steam pretty well, it has been convenient and useful for me," and the other side says, "Steam is harmful to everyone for the following X reasons." The people in the first group all accept that you don't like Steam, and that's just fine. But the people in the second group seem outraged that anyone else does like Steam, and bombard them with all sorts of name-calling, insults, implications about their dishonesty, etc., etc.

 

[Kryhavok]

I'm not agitating for any extra details, just a straight simple answer to my question. How many of those accts are there because they have to be.

First, you'd have to take out any accounts that are associated only with VALVe games.

Edit: But even then, each and every account is there because they want to be, because they want to play the games that are provided by Steam. I guess I don't understand which accounts could be there because they don't have to. Just like, for example, Netflix. All of those accounts are they because they have to if users want to watch their movies.

 

[Fistalis]

But the people in the second group seem outraged that anyone else does like Steam, and bombard them with all sorts of name-calling, insults, implications about their dishonesty, etc., etc.

Which is actually expected when game companies are more and more making it a requirement to run their game. Many people who simply don't like steam and don't want to use it feel that those who are using it and like it are destroying the potential for them to get any steam free games in the future. Meaning that people using the service is in the long run being a detriment to those who don't like it Since their usage of it is seen as positive feedback to publishers.

Here lies the real issue. If person A doesnt like steam and doesn't use it.. it has no effect on person B. However because person B is using it and does like it.. publishers take that as positive feedback making the potential for the next game release to also require it. Meaning person A again is denied a game he wants to play because person B is continually supporting the service.

Is either side right or wrong? No its a matter of opinion and weighing what their particular needs/limitations on a service are. However By supporting those games which require steam people are effecting those who wish to game without steam in a detrimental fashion by supporting the idea that everyone being required to use the service is okay.
If steam were optional this whole thread and conversations within would be moot.

 

[Drakarska]

First, you'd have to take out any accounts that are associated only with VALVe games.

Fair enough. How about we use V as the example then? Steam is required to play. Most polls ( on here and over at 2k at least) show approximately 40% - 50% that people are unhappy with the Steam requirements. My question still applies, of the accounts created for the copies sold, how many of them were created merely because it was required to do so? I'm not trying to start another poll, or instigate any further flames, it just would be interesting to know.

 

[Drakarska]

First, you'd have to take out any accounts that are associated only with VALVe games.

Edit: But even then, each and every account is there because they want to be, because they want to play the games that are provided by Steam. I guess I don't understand which accounts could be there because they don't have to. Just like, for example, Netflix. All of those accounts are they because they have to if users want to watch their movies.

Just saw your edit. Perhaps I am making myself unclear ( and my apologies). It's not a matter if they want to be, but that they are REQUIRED to be. Subtle difference, agreed, but I still am curious.

 

[zonk]

I've bought games from GamersGate in the past and found their system much less convenient and user-friendly. That's why I don't use it any more.

Just out of curiosity -- why/how?

Is it because you want the direct interaction with your digital distributor - not a judgment on that inherently being good or bad - just wondering if that's it?

I love GG because it's essentially just a download-and-drop service... Buy, download, validate, the service drops a registry, and you never have to deal with it again if you don't want to.

In the realm of non-proprietary digital distributors I've used -- I'd rank them GamersGate >> Impulse >>>> Steam. I've played a few games that use their own system/systems without big catalogs -- OOTP's is nice, with it's 2 licenses and very responsive provider that quickly disables licenses on crashed hardrives, etc.

The big pluses I have with GG is that it's more Amazon like -- shop for what you want, buy it, it gets "delivered", and that's it... It also lets you choose your own install directories -- which I find to be an ENORMOUS plus over both Impulse and Steam.

The forced directory location is the only thing I don't like about Impulse -- that, and the initially rollout was just terrible... but since they've properly scaled bandwith, I no longer get stuck with hanging downloads or timeouts, I've love it. I especially love it's update GUI -- I don't mind seeking out and downloading my own patches (in fact, I generally prefer it... I like to review patch notes before actually installing) -- but if a distributor is going to bake the patching into their distribution channel, Impulse is the way to go... There's no remembering to set to "Do not update", the backup and the ability to roll back to the backup is right there in the same GUI you use to decide to download.

 

[Maniacal]

Anthropoid, have you even used Steam since how ever many YEARS ago you used it once and had one bad experience with customer service because your game wasn't updated? You seem to be basing a lot of your posts on other people's limited experiences and past grudges that may or may not be entirely applicable anymore. EDIT: I hope that is what I meant to say/clear? Not sure. Need food.

Which is actually expected when game companies are more and more making it a requirement to run their game. Many people who simply don't like steam and don't want to use it feel that those who are using it and like it are destroying the potential for them to get any steam free games in the future. Meaning that people using the service is in the long run being a detriment to those who don't like it Since their usage of it is seen as positive feedback to publishers.

Here lies the real issue. If person A doesnt like steam and doesn't use it.. it has no effect on person B. However because person B is using it and does like it.. publishers take that as positive feedback making the potential for the next game release to also require it. Meaning person A again is denied a game he wants to play because person B is continually supporting the service.

If steam were optional this whole thread and conversations within would be moot.

People raged just as much when Empire: Total War was released as a Steam game, though possibly more so about the game itself than with Civ5 because Empire was broken upon release (Civ5 isn't THAT bad). However, that hasn't hurt the game/company enough to make it stop using Steam, indeed it doesn't look like they have any intention of NOT using Steam for their next games.

EDIT: I like GamersGate too, however they don't always have very good download speeds.

 

[Socratatus]

I share your concerns, which is precisely why I am participating and taking the time to express my views.

If nothing else, Firaxis and 2K should be aware that they lost some of us as loyal customers, and not deluded by outspoken Steam advocates into thinking that everything is hunky-dory.

I would not like to see Steam become more common, unless of course they change their business model (which I honestly don't see them doing). If they were to take some of the annoying and intrusive dimensions of their service out (namely the required online reactivation process) then I would be willing to give them a try again. At that point they wouldn't differ from Gamersgate, etc., and given the other features they offer, then why wouldn't I want to try them out?

But, Steam changing is not going to happen if they do not perceive backlash, or rather if 2K/Firaxis in this case do not perceive backlash.

I for example, am presently boycotting Fallout New Vegas, and Civ 5 for no reason other than that they are Steam compulsory. I would buy FONV in a heart beat if it was not requiring Steam. Civ 5 seems a bit less promising as a game, so I might be a bit delayed there, but since it is one of my favorite game series ever (I used to be an absolutely devoted Civ fanboy, no doubt about it) I would certainly be prone to buy it if not for Steam required.

I never tried Empire Total War; that one sounded problematic, but the Steam requirement was really the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I am also planning to boycott the new TES game, and any other game in the future that requires Steam.

On the other hand, I bought Vicky2 IMMEDIATELY when it was released. It still needed patching and I knew it would. That didn't matter to me; not only did I want to play the game, but I wanted to do what I can to support Paradox and indirectly to encourage publishers who do not resort to Steam or worse yet DRM.

When I see that Steam has reformed and is no more intrusive, annoying or manipulative of consumers than say Gamersgate, I will halt my boycott and happily support Valve and the publishers/developers. Bethesda, Firaxis, Slitherine, Stardock, Matrix, Valve, Paradox, Nitro, etc., they _all_ make good games, and because I am a devoted gamer, I'm happy to do what I can to support all of them for providing us with great games. But NOT if they resort to Steam as it is presently incarnated. This sort of behavior should not be encouraged, and I realize that there are probably many participating in this thread who see it differently.

My goal, and the only reason I'm continuing to post here, is to get this message across and not have it drowned out by the dismissive, belittling of those of us who have this perspective combined with the outspoken advocacy of Steam.

At the end of the day, I'm just one guy; but if they hear one guy, maybe then they will look around and see the signs that I see, that it isn't just one guy, it is a bunch of guys. A large enough bunch of guys = substantial loss of profits.

Well done. I have also boycotted CIV 5 and (sadly) FO3 Vegas. I did accidentally get lobbed onto Steam by Empire Total War and that was a 1 year nightmare. i still protest on the forums about it just to show that someone does not agree to it, since `fanboys` (I don`t like that word but must use it here), insist on making Devs think that everyone loves Steam.

Of course, nothing has changed, no one seems to care, but I stand by my views, alone if need be. Good intelligent points also, Fistalis.

OPTIONAL is the key word here. I don`t like how we are all expected to love Steam like the fanboys when we do not. We are not all the same.

 

[Fistalis]

Anthropoid, have you even used Steam since how ever many YEARS ago you used it once and had one bad experience with customer service because your game wasn't updated?


People raged just as much when Empire: Total War was released as a Steam game, though possibly more so about the game itself than with Civ5 because Empire was broken upon release (Civ5 isn't THAT bad). However, that hasn't hurt the game/company enough to make it stop using Steam, indeed it doesn't look like they have any intention of NOT using Steam for their next games.

Exactly.. because Some people either are apathetic to or like steam, and will buy the product anyway the company sees no issue with requiring it. If releasing on steam actually killed a games sales it would be different. Many people will forgo Civ V due to steam.. will it matter? probably not. Which means any future titles will need it. While steam refuses to address many peoples particular concerns they are pretty much maintaining enough of a market share and getting enough publishers to be steamworks integrated that those particular people who have concerns about steam are going to either A have to get over it and use steam or B simply give up PC gaming outside of a few industry black sheep like stardock.
If it comes to the point that every game i can purchase requires steam then I guess ill give up gaming and whittle or something

 

[Anthropoid]

From the Steam Wiki:
As of 2010, there are over 1,200 games available through Steam, and over 30 million active user accounts. Although Valve never releases sales figures, Steam is estimated to have a 70% share of the digital distribution market for video games.

Ah, the "resistance is futile" theme . . .

And the fact that one distributor is estimated to have that sort of dominance in that market is a good thing, how? With that sort of estimated market share, it is no surprise to me that Steam provides poor customer support and follows business practices that impose on consumers.

Good luck to you. That's a pretty enormous mountain to climb, even if it is only estimated as enormous

If I may say so Jharii, in rereading this thread and looking at some of your past posts, I see a pattern that I would best describe as sardonic, with the above quote being exemplary.

Do you intend to be scornfully or cynically mocking by wishing me "luck?" What exactly are you wishing me luck at accomplishing? Why exactly do you think I need "luck?" Do I need luck to express my views about a corporate practice I disagree with? Perhaps you mean to suggest that I am on some sort of mission to achieve some goal?

"Luck" is unnecessary for the simple reason that I'm not on some sort of mission or goal driven objective. I'm a gamer. I see the growth of Steam in gaming. I have free time to participate in forums like this, and express my concerns about Steam and its growing predominance. As far as I understand it, as a registered member operating within the boundaries of the rules of the site, I am completely within my privileges to do this. Why would I need "luck?"

Given these points, I will do what I can to encourage publishers like 2K to reconsider going with Steam, when I have the time and feel the inclination. There is no way I can "succeed" or "fail" at such a mode of operation. I have nothing to lose and I don't need "luck" or any other patronizing encouragement.

Steam on the other hand could achieve total market dominance, and find themselves in anti-trust court, which could then lead to their collapse and the evaporation of their services. Or they could find themselves contesting an infringement of fair use case as I outlined above, potentially leading to the same consequences for consumers. Or they could find themselves being outmaneuvered by a more nimble competitor who provides essentially all the same services but without the negative and annoying features of Steam. In a world were billions of dollars of pension money evaporated overnight when Enron's corruption was revealed, such scenarios are not without some precedent.

@Daviddes: Steam and their clients such as 2K, can focus on their sales figures and disregard other sources of information such as discussion on game forums if they want to. The point that I'm making, and which you seem to be missing is that, they might be making even more money if they redesigned their business model so that they did not irk those of us who don't like elements of it.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I love GG because it's essentially just a download-and-drop service... Buy, download, validate, the service drops a registry, and you never have to deal with it again if you don't want to.

I want all of the other things that Steam does. I can install Steam (or Impulse) on a new computer and get all of my games installed with a single click. I get automatic patching. I can see at a glance what games I own. The new "save in the cloud" service in Steam looks very nice, although I haven't used it yet.

Maybe some of these things have been added to GamersGate in the few years since I last used it. I also had pretty serious billing problems with them, and reliability issues with downloads.

Impulse has fewer games, and is Windows-only (Steam has mostly Windows games, but is adding more Mac games, and you get both versions for one price).

I've played a few games that use their own system/systems without big catalogs -- OOTP's is nice, with it's 2 licenses and very responsive provider that quickly disables licenses on crashed hardrives, etc.

Two licenses would be a problem for me. I have my Steam and Impulse games installed on several different machines.

 

[DaviddesJ]

@Daviddes: Steam and their clients such as 2K, can focus on their sales figures and disregard other sources of information such as discussion on game forums if they want to. The point that I'm making, and which you seem to be missing is that, they might be making even more money if they redesigned their business model so that they did not irk those of us who don't like elements of it.

I don't think I'm missing your point, I just disagree with it. I think they have done substantial market research, and they hold the well-justified opinion that the increased sales due to convenience and functionality for their large majority of customers outweigh the negative effect from the small but intensely disaffected group who really hate Steam. Seeing a few people post 50 messages each on CFC about how they really really hate Steam probably isn't going to change that calculation for them.