Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
And to those of you who keep pointing out that steam can be required even on a boxed copy completely miss the point - there are those of us who want a boxed copy THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE STEAM;
No, I'm not missing the point of people saying "I prefer a hard copy" if a hard copy is possible. If they said "I want a copy that does not require steam" then I'd be missing the point. But that's not what they're saying, they're saying they want a hard copy. Maybe they also don't want steam, but the hard copy part of it is utterly irrelevant, so why mention it unless you are under the mistaken impression that steam means no hard copy?
I want to go without steam simply because I want to manage my games myself; I don't want another application running in the background, and I don't want to have to launch through another application.
That is completely arbitrary. Why don't you want to? What if the game has an auto updating patcher that the game runs through, then what? Do you object to this too on the same grounds? Because what, running a binary through a launcher is bad for some reason?
Steam currently has a memory footprint on my system of 15mb. Barely even a blip - so I know you're not coming from a resource hog perspective. It adds no significant loading time onto games, so you're not coming from that perspective either. It doesn't have to load on startup so you're not coming from the perspective of disliking superfluous memory resident processes. You don't even need to load the game through the steam interface, since a normal shortcut to the game works just fine and gets installed on your desktop by default.
So what is it?