Will it be steam based?

[Chalks]

Indeed it is (I highly doubt they would use it for any other purpose). Most of the time stuff like that is inserted in case of lawsuits. But Chalk's attitude is what gets me. As far as I can tell, he sees anyone who disagrees with him as wrong.

And your attitude is that you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say, and only concede the point if someone else reiterates it.

It's a match made in heaven.

 

[cspyr0]

PS: during the holidays steam was selling Civ4, all the xpacs, and colonization for $13 total. I already owned Civ4 on CD, but bought it anyway simply because I like to have it on steam more.

I must have missed that - I've been waiting for it to go on discount on Steam for a while. Having it all online is nice. I remember a long time ago having my Max Payne disc break, and they of course wouldn't replace it even though they always argue that you don't "own" the game, you "license" it. Well if I own a license I should be able to get the game again for only the cost of the packaging! Oh well, Steam fixes that at least.

 

[deanej]

And your attitude is that you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say, and only concede the point if someone else reiterates it.

It's a match made in heaven.

No, I just happen to disagree with 90% of what you say.

 

[negZero]

No, I just happen to disagree with 90% of what you say.

And this just proves him correct.

 

[deanej]

And this just proves him correct.

First of all, he was saying I disagree with him 100% of the time.

Second of all, he was saying I disagree with him just to disagree with him. This is false. We just happen to have very different views. If others were saying the same thing I would disagree with them too.

I'm just plain tired of the steam fanboys saying everyone who doesn't think steam is the greatest service ever invented is wrong. Chalks just happens to be the most annoying of them (and the most vocal).

I'm done here.

 

[negZero]

First of all, he was saying I disagree with him 100% of the time.

Second of all, he was saying I disagree with him just to disagree with him. This is false. We just happen to have very different views. If others were saying the same thing I would disagree with them too.

I'm just plain tired of the steam fanboys saying everyone who doesn't think steam is the greatest service ever invented is wrong. Chalks just happens to be the most annoying of them (and the most vocal).

I'm done here.

Again he said you would disagree with anything he said and then you disagreed with him. He won, you lost.

 

[The_J]

I just shot someone in counterstrike and did not get banned.

How utterly astonishing.

a) you'll sure not get banned because of playing a game with the game rules, yes, that's clear to me.
b) that does not mean, that you cannot get banned because of doing something legal but unwanted.

 

[Chalks]

a) you'll sure not get banned because of playing a game with the game rules, yes, that's clear to me.
b) that does not mean, that you cannot get banned because of doing something legal but unwanted.

Which isn't what the person was trying to claim... so what thread do you think you are replying to?

They said that steam would ban you if you broke a peace treaty in Civ.

 

[The_J]

You've quoted here this:

So negatively affecting the enjoyment of other steam users is reason enough for your subscription or account to be terminated. Suppose you go online to play multiplayer in Civ5 and you "backstab" a couple of other players who were in an alliance with you. Given that a lot of people don't enjoy losing, it could negatively affect their enjoyment of the game and Steam has the right to cancel your subscription.

"Backstabing", which i think means here breaking peace treaties and not-attacking-pacts, is also a reason for getting banned out of our multiplayer league (if i remember correcty; i don't play MP), if you do it to often.
And the policies can be interpreted in that way, that if you report it, you can get kicked and will not be able to play your game even in single player.

 

[Chalks]

"Backstabing", which i think means here breaking peace treaties and not-attacking-pacts, is also a reason for getting banned out of our multiplayer league (if i remember correcty; i don't play MP), if you do it to often.
And the policies can be interpreted in that way, that if you report it, you can get kicked and will not be able to play your game even in single player.

I must have missed the part where the steam terms of service has anything what so ever to do with that.

So you're saying that you can just make up some random rules, and if someone breaks them they get banned from steam?

Cool story.

 

[The_J]

PieceOfMind has quoted here:

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers.

This is so unprecise, that you can call it random.

 

[PieceOfMind]

[So negatively affecting the enjoyment of other steam users is reason enough for your subscription or account to be terminated. Suppose you go online to play multiplayer in Civ5 and you "backstab" a couple of other players who were in an alliance with you. Given that a lot of people don't enjoy losing, it could negatively affect their enjoyment of the game and Steam has the right to cancel your subscription.

This comment is so ludicrous that I'm not even going to answer it. I'm just going to quote it like this. Just going to leave it hanging there at the top of my reply. Yep. There it is. The embodiment of why I have such a hard time taking half the people in this thread seriously.

Like it or not, that's the wording in the official subscriber agreement.

I noticed you bring up an even more absurd example than mine. Obviously, doing a headshot in a game like CS is pretty standard whereas backstabbing a player in a Civ game where you've invested many hours has more potential to piss someone off. Anyway, let's even ignore that example too because I agree it is a bad one.


Imagine this scenario... You have a bad internet connection and attempt to connect to an existing online game. The game seems to hang (maybe it's a bug, maybe your internet connection) but you wait out a few minutes to see if it will resolve. It doesn't, so you terminate the game's process and try again. Meanwhile, in game, the current players are getting annoyed. The actions the joining player are taking could be interpreted by some as griefing. It takes a few players to get annoyed at this behaviour and report that person. Steam then have the right to exercise their power to cancel that player's subscription.

Imagine other scenarios like a non-English speaker entering a game and comitting some sort of "faux pas", annoying the players who then report him. You I'm sure would agree that not all players you meet on the internet act completely fairly and level-headedly. They especially are not always kind or helpful to newer players who don't know their way around and aren't familiar with the local etiquette.

It may seem far fetched, but tell that to someone reading the subscriber agreement who has no prior experience with Steam. It reminds me of what bits of your life you had to sign away with the "ToS" for WoW, though that game's agreement is far far worse obviously.

Insult me as much as you want, and ignore the point as much as you want, but I'll continue to consider real possibilities. As has been said many times before, no system is perfect, Steam included. Stop pretending the system is perfect and that just because you've never had a problem with it no one else ever will.

I'm fairly confident Steam is responsible in how it cancels subscriptions and bans users, but I'm also almost certain that not all 100% of cancelled subscriptions would have completely deserved it. As any person who's ever had that happen to them I'm sure would attest, cancelling a subscription is going to be controversial most of the time. The fact that they even can cancel your subscription is concern enough. As others have said, you merely have a license to play the game assuming you follow x,y,z condtions else you be banned. If I'm having a bad day, playing a game of SP and call Monty a "freak"ing idiot, I needn't worry about losing my right to play the game - I might just upset my significant other (on second thoughts, maybe I would lose my right to play the game! ) or scare the dog. Call someone a "freak"ing idiot in MP and you could be reported as being abusive or whatever and with maybe one or two more similar reports you might risk losing your subscription. It's written in the agreement.

As mentioned, they don't even need to provide a warning.

These are real concerns and no amount of you saying, "You're being ludicrous", will change my mind that Steam have the authority to carry out the actions that are agreed to in the subscriber agreement.

By someone who is intentionally misinterpreting it. Congratulations, your defence of this post completely proves my point.

I am not intentionally misinterpreting it. I'm not even sure it's possible to "intentionally misinterpret" something, maybe to "intentionally misrepresent" or "intentionally mislead" but I'm doing neither of those either. What I have admitted to is not going out of my way to promote Steam, singing praise about their wonderful features like social networking or backing up of games. That seems to be your primary objection to most of my posts, that I don't hold it in the same high regard as you do. There's something called opinion and as you've noticed, mine differs from yours.

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers.

As they write, any conduct or activity that negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other subscribers means Valve may terminate your account.

Are you trying to argue that negatively affecting the enjoyment of other subscribers in game does not imply negatively affecting the enjoyment of Steam. That's about the only way I can think of that I might possibly be misinterpreting it. If I'm playing a game on Steam and someone is negatively affecting my enjoyment in game, is that affecting my enjoyment of Steam, since I am using Steam to play the game? It seems to be open to interpretation, or am I mistaken?

Are you actually tring to say I'm just being paranoid and that companies like Steam just write phrases like that for shiz and giggles, never intending to actually carry them out?

************


Onto another subject..........................
I quickly read the EULA for Civ4 and interestingly:
-backup copies of the game (even strictly for private use are prohibited). I know many of you already know this/
-You are allowed to sell the game (i.e. the rights to that particular game). It appears this is not the case with Steam-downloaded games (correct me if I'm wrong). I have sold games I didn't want anymore and I have bought old games from people who didn't want those games anymore. Everyone raves about buying old games cheaply off Steam. You can also buy old games cheaply second hand. They will sell those games cheap on Steam because it reflects the market value of the game i.e. in the second-hand market, assuming the game can even be sold on the second-hand market (many modern games can't). I would be very surprised if there were cheap games being sold on Steam that were significantly cheaper than on the second-hand market. (e.g. at least 10 or 15 dollars difference).

As someone (I forget who) remarked much earlier on, digital distribution could easily be argued as being mainly motiviated by a desire to cut out the second-hand market. For a developer, that is probably the biggest advantage for a Steam-like distribution method. For budget conscious gamers, I would assume the resale potential of a store-bought game will often factor into their decision when buying an expensive game.

 

[cspyr0]

Imagine this scenario... You have a bad internet connection and attempt to connect to an existing online game. The game seems to hang (maybe it's a bug, maybe your internet connection) but you wait out a few minutes to see if it will resolve. It doesn't, so you terminate the game's process and try again. Meanwhile, in game, the current players are getting annoyed. The actions the joining player are taking could be interpreted by some as griefing. It takes a few players to get annoyed at this behaviour and report that person. Steam then have the right to exercise their power to cancel that player's subscription.

...

I'm fairly confident Steam is responsible in how it cancels subscriptions and bans users, but I'm also almost certain that not all 100% of cancelled subscriptions would have completely deserved it. As any person who's ever had that happen to them I'm sure would attest, cancelling a subscription is going to be controversial most of the time. The fact that they even can cancel your subscription is concern enough.

...

As someone (I forget who) remarked much earlier on, digital distribution could easily be argued as being mainly motiviated by a desire to cut out the second-hand market. For a developer, that is probably the biggest advantage for a Steam-like distribution method. For budget conscious gamers, I would assume the resale potential of a store-bought game will often factor into their decision when buying an expensive game.

You bring up good points which mirror what I've said in a lot of posts - I'm the one who said DRM is primarily (and sneakily) used to attempt to cripple the second-hand market. I never sell games so I don't care, but it's a legit concern for some.

As far as them having the power to ban you, yeah they have it and there is a possibility they could exercise that power. It's extremely low, and not even a concern if you're not cheating though. Valve does NOT ban for griefing or cursing or even if a hundred people report you for something. The procedure to get someone banned is to let Valve know the person's username, at which point Valve investigates and if they personally witness cheating then they ban.

It's seriously like a innocent until proven guilty kind of thing, which is good because it means they won't make many mistakes banning people, if any. It can actually be frustrating to me in multiplayer games, though, to see someone blatantly cheat and not have a way to get them banned in a timely fashion. Honestly I see where you're coming from about their vagueness giving them awesome power over your games, but it's really common (and will probably be in the other DRM's you get to choose from) and not much to worry about. Especially if you're not cheating and even more so if you only play single player.

 

[gunnergoz]

No Steam for me, thank you. If Civ V requires it, I won't buy it and that will be the first Civ game I miss...with great reluctance, too.
I don't want any game that requires a connection to the internet just to play. Registration, one time, OK, but not every time you launch...that is too sneaky and obtrusive in my book.

 

[azzaman333]

You've quoted here this:


"Backstabing", which i think means here breaking peace treaties and not-attacking-pacts, is also a reason for getting banned out of our multiplayer league (if i remember correcty; i don't play MP), if you do it to often.
And the policies can be interpreted in that way, that if you report it, you can get kicked and will not be able to play your game even in single player.

It will never be interpreted in such a way.

 

[Grey2ham]

No Steam for me, thank you. If Civ V requires it, I won't buy it and that will be the first Civ game I miss...with great reluctance, too.
I don't want any game that requires a connection to the internet just to play. Registration, one time, OK, but not every time you launch...that is too sneaky and obtrusive in my book.

So whats your problem with steam? You only have to authenticate it once online, then you can play the game without an internet connection.



Other DRM options may require a constant internet connection (cough Ubisoft cough), but steam doesn't, you can launch the game offlinethrough steam's 'offline mode' after authenticating it once. Steam is the superior DRM of the online authentication variety.

 

[Chalks]

It will never be interpreted in such a way.

BuT MaYbE iT wIlL!1!!

It's a losing battle against people who's only purpose here is to twist things out of context. You won't convince them without a signed contract from every single decision maker at Valve saying that they don't do something that everyone knows they're not going to do, because they are desperate for anti-steam arguments, no matter how ludicrous.

 

[Tamed]

This game is already confirmed for a Steam release, as you can find it: http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/ <- Right there.

Now please stop arguing. Please just let this thread end or lock it or something, Steam gamers will enjoy ease of access and paranoid\old fashioned\collection-based\single-player oriented (not insulting, just truth bearing) gamers will enjoy their discs. Everyone is happy.

It's already been floating around that this game will support Steamworks, so that's even better for people who aren't scared of Valve. Steamworks is a service that allows you to hop into games using your Steam friends list and view what your buddies are doing, it's honestly a great system and pretty much essential for any modern multiplayer game.

 

[Senethro]

Unfortunately we need to keep bumping it as theres already repeats by steam-haters being posted. Hopefully having one on the first page will draw them in here rather than making new topics.

 

[The_J]

[...]

It will never be interpreted in such a way.

I guess, your crystal ball tells you this?

BuT MaYbE iT wIlL!1!!

It's a losing battle against people who's only purpose here is to twist things out of context. You won't convince them without a signed contract from every single decision maker at Valve saying that they don't do something that everyone knows they're not going to do, because they are desperate for anti-steam arguments, no matter how ludicrous.

PieceOfMind has shown you some examples, where the subject could be interpreted as a violation of the rules.
You don't know, if there's really any person sitting there, which investigates the reports. There's a big chance, that there's just a system, in which you'll get banned, when enough people have complained about you, and then you have to argue with Valve to get your account back.

Rejecting a possible option is just idioty.