What are the pros as consumers for a software like Steam?

[scyt4l3]

I apologize in advance if it's a horse beaten to death already. But let's keep it concise and civil.

What are the pros as consumers for a software like Steam?

The only thing I can see is that it serve as a platform to buy a game online and downloading it via internet.

I've seen many posts ranting at how it's usage was "forced" on consumers. While I agree that the gaming industry is pushing more and more bad concepts into our throat, I don't want to get into this.

The most positive argument I've seen up to now is that Steam isn't really an hindrance. But is there any other positive things to it other that what I stated?

All hail Civfanatics,

Cheers

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Not having to worry about scratching up physical media. Thats the only thing I can think of.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

No physical media -- your games are available anywhere you can get an internet connection.

Multiple installs of games at once -- normally, if you read the EULA for games, you will note that you can't have it installed on more than 1 pc at once. This isnt so with Steam.

Simplified delivery -- finding and purchasing products is a lot easier and you have more info available to you before purchase vs a physical copy.

Simplified updates -- as long as you have an active internet connection your games will be patched to the latest version as soon as the patches are released.

Community framework -- Steamworks is an already-made solution so that each developer doesn't need to create an in-house framework. Simplifies the work that has to be done and reduces time to release.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I should also mention another one that is more of a result of Steam's command of the digital distribution market: sales. Almost every week there is a game on sale which means that I dont have to spend nearly as much to get new content.


So far I haven't seen a real good argument against Steam though. 'Forced' on consumers? By who, the consumers themselves? Valve didn't hold a gun to their head and forced them to do anything.

If its a valid complaint about something that should/shouldn't be present in the game, such as a previously announced feature, or a major bug, that I can understand. Complaining that you hate a major part of the game and whining that it needs to be removed while continuing to play on the other hand, is not okay. If you don't want Steam, don't buy a Steam-only game because if you do buy the game, no matter what you say, your dollar has already voted, in big fat letters: "Yes, I like Steam"

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Ive heard about some DRM if the internet cuts out in the middle of the game it'll quit or something without letting you save. Does Steam do that. I dont recall ever hearing about Steam just others.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Nope, if the internet goes out, as long as you're playing single-player the game will just continue chugging along. If you're playing multiplayer it will kick you off the game, but that will happen with any multiplayer game, DRM'd or not.

EDIT -- I should note that by kick you off the game I mean it will drop back out to main menu, not exit the game.

 

[scyt4l3]

By "forced" I mean the lack of another option. It's very clear that nobody litterally forces you to buy games, it's just an expression.

The way I use my games, none of the points count as a plus to me. I like to manage my patches myself, I'd rather have a physical copy than the right to download using my account from anywhere, and I'm the kind of guy that make backup discs of the discs I use a lot and to remove the cd-check because it get the games started faster. I'm more of a self-sufficient guy, so these commodities feel like invasion to me. Though I can understand why other type of people would see advantages in that. Thanks for the input!

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Yeah, I dont remember the name of the other one, but they would do checks every few minutes (I think) and if there was no 'net... Goodbye. Which would be a pain because my internets been going out lately and with my luck it would concide (I think I spelt that wrong) with one of the checks. I dont have a game with that anyways.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

By "forced" I mean the lack of another option. It's very clear that nobody litterally forces you to buy games, it's just an expression.

The way I use my games, none of the points count as a plus to me. I like to manage my patches myself, I'd rather have a physical copy than the right to download using my account from anywhere, and I'm the kind of guy that make backup discs of the discs I use a lot and to remove the cd-check because it get the games started faster. I'm more of a self-sufficient guy, so these commodities feel like invasion to me. Though I can understand why other type of people would see advantages in that. Thanks for the input!

You never have an option in DRM. Or rather, you do, but only two: accept it or don't use it.

You can have a physical copy: Steam allows you to make backups of your games to a disk. You will still need steam later on, but thats an option. You can also simply make a copy of the steamapps folder and save it elsewhere on your hard drive.

I have a feeling most of this Steam frustration stems from the fact that people only have 1 game on their Steam account. Once you get to 4 or 5 games, Steam becomes a pretty useful tool, and at 10+ games, its indispensable.

 

[illram]

No physical media -- your games are available anywhere you can get an internet connection.

Multiple installs of games at once -- normally, if you read the EULA for games, you will note that you can't have it installed on more than 1 pc at once. This isnt so with Steam.

Simplified delivery -- finding and purchasing products is a lot easier and you have more info available to you before purchase vs a physical copy.

Simplified updates -- as long as you have an active internet connection your games will be patched to the latest version as soon as the patches are released.

Community framework -- Steamworks is an already-made solution so that each developer doesn't need to create an in-house framework. Simplifies the work that has to be done and reduces time to release.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I should also mention another one that is more of a result of Steam's command of the digital distribution market: sales. Almost every week there is a game on sale which means that I dont have to spend nearly as much to get new content.


So far I haven't seen a real good argument against Steam though. 'Forced' on consumers? By who, the consumers themselves? Valve didn't hold a gun to their head and forced them to do anything.

If its a valid complaint about something that should/shouldn't be present in the game, such as a previously announced feature, or a major bug, that I can understand. Complaining that you hate a major part of the game and whining that it needs to be removed while continuing to play on the other hand, is not okay. If you don't want Steam, don't buy a Steam-only game because if you do buy the game, no matter what you say, your dollar has already voted, in big fat letters: "Yes, I like Steam"

Agreed. I think Steam is a great solution for developers and gamers. So far it's the least obtrusive means of copy protection I've seen, and it's the first that actually seems to be more convenient for me.

Developers are going to continue to look for ways to combat piracy. That's just never going to stop, it's a reality. This solution seems to be the only one so far that doesn't suck, and actually may be quite nice.

 

[Mise]

I agree with GenocidicBunny. Steam is an excellent proposition for consumers, though I would prefer there was more competition among content delivery systems. That is, I wish for a common standard among content delivery systems, so that I as a consumer could choose between several different systems, instead of each game being tied to one single content delivery system. It would be great if, say, Amazon came out with a Content Delivery system that any game could be bought and delivered through.

 

[Zelig]

I agree with GenocidicBunny. Steam is an excellent proposition for consumers, though I would prefer there was more competition among content delivery systems. That is, I wish for a common standard among content delivery systems, so that I as a consumer could choose between several different systems, instead of each game being tied to one single content delivery system. It would be great if, say, Amazon came out with a Content Delivery system that any game could be bought and delivered through.

Well, Stardock has something of the sort with GOO, but any attempt is basically dead-in-the water without support from Valve.

edit: Actually, I just went and tried to read about GOO, and mostly just got confused...

 

[Turner]

I had to install Steam for HL2. I wasn't happy about it, but that didn't stop me from playing the game. Eventually I'll get Civ5, and probably reinstall HL2 on there too.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Steam in the HL2 days is a way different beast than it is now. I remember I hated it back then too.

 

[Turner]

Meh, I'm techie enough to keep it off my system when I don't want it there. That's why i tolerated it to begin with.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Im just saying that for an accurate reference point, one needs to try Steam as a digital distribution platform. Not single-game DRM but for multiple games.

 

[warpus]

Call me oldschool, but when I buy a game I expect to get a nice manual, fancy addons, and other game related crap. If I don't get anything physical with my purchase.. I am far less likely to spend money.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

There was a game developer in the 80s that included all sorts of goodies with their games. I forgot the name of it but one of their games was called Bureaucracy. AFAIK Its not around anymore

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Call me oldschool, but when I buy a game I expect to get a nice manual, fancy addons, and other game related crap. If I don't get anything physical with my purchase.. I am far less likely to spend money.

Sorry, you're gonna have to go back to the 90's now. Visiting time is over.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

There was a game developer in the 80s that included all sorts of goodies with their games. I forgot the name of it but one of their games was called Bureaucracy. AFAIK Its not around anymore

That was called Infocom. From what I read Activision bought it out (Wikipedia says a "reverse triangular merger") and then ran it into the ground with their stupidity

What annoys me is when I pay and get a HUGE BOX and all inside is a tiny little paper wrapper. Thats annoying and a waste of trees.(Unless its recycled). I like the double-thick DVD cases that some games came in and now some are usually regular-thick DVD cases. Or I also like a jewel case (they tend to start cracking after a while though the plastic)

I also like paper manuals (I know its not good for trees though. Maybe on recycled paper) and a PDF just isnt the same.

I think digital distribution would be the best for the environment though unless Im missing something else. But an annoying thing about Steam is that you can't revoke your game and give it to someone else without giving them your password. And with a CD you can. I dont know if that changed since I read it.

 

[GoodGame]

I apologize in advance if it's a horse beaten to death already. But let's keep it concise and civil.

What are the pros as consumers for a software like Steam?

The only thing I can see is that it serve as a platform to buy a game online and downloading it via internet.

I've seen many posts ranting at how it's usage was "forced" on consumers. While I agree that the gaming industry is pushing more and more bad concepts into our throat, I don't want to get into this.

The most positive argument I've seen up to now is that Steam isn't really an hindrance. But is there any other positive things to it other that what I stated?

All hail Civfanatics,

Cheers

No physical media is really not a major advantage. On CDROM with activation numbers written on it isn't a storage burden, though digital download does eliminate all the distribution waste (pointless box art, pointless box, pointless cardboard filler, pointless manual that is really just an advert for some other game or a strategy manual, etc...).

The major advantage to Steam is the competitive pricing on sales for essentially obsolete products. They get cheaper prices since they pretty much eliminate the overhead of storing a turkey product for long periods in a physical location. So they can sell a classic game for 99cents, or offload a company's complete 3-year old lineup for 50% off.

All digital download software that requires initial activation is essentially cobbling you to the internet. Say you lose internet and have a hard-drive crash---then you lose the activation and use of that software. The pro of Steam is you can download it again, but then you have to think of your internet connection as a kind of expensive insurance against your hard drive crashing.

The problem is....what if you move to someplace with crappy/overpriced internet? Then you've invested money in software that you can't use after your hard drive crashes.

One of the other problems is retail software that is saddled with internet activation (e.g. Civ5 requiring you to install and activate through online Steam). It defeats the purpose of just buying and installing the retail software.

Steam is a pretty good service....IF you always maintain an internet connection, regardless of the feature to run previously installed software offline. 50% of on a large collection of games is little value if you can't play them do to a hard drive crash and no internet. period.

The ideal service lets you download, backup, and install without copy protection schemes (e.g. GOG.com) and on top of that saves an online archival copy for you as well. Even better if you don't have to download some kind of installation browser/program to initially download.