let both systems compete! traditional vs download

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:

> Besides which, "all" of the publishers are watching. A few are trying new
> things such as Steam, and Pay2Download. The rest are waiting to measure the

steam is totally wrong cause it takes away any choice
its simply trying to FORCE! to MONOPOLIZE! and that is UNACCEPTABLE!

i checked pay2download and the site looks awful! such an amateur look so
i really didn't take it seriously

now do you know about d2d? www.direct2drive.com? i don't have any problem
with something like this... but let me make this clear i don't like it and
i will never use it! i don't buy and will not buy ever games via download
i want it in a physical medium version cd-rom or dvd-rom but i'm not at
all against choice... so if you prefer to buy thief or farcry via d2d do
it but let me buy it the way i want which is in a cd-rom!
do you understand?
i have no problem with direct2drive cause it doesn't take away choice!
i think having more choice for the consumer is best!
with steam its completely different! they took away ANY CHOICE FROM US!
they are deciding for us! that's wrong! i will never accept it!

if via download is such a good system and something gamers want let it
be proved in the market place! let there be choice in the market place!
let both system compete for the way to sell games!
are you listening to me?????
LET BOTH SYSTEMS COMPETE FOR THE WAY TO SELL GAMES!!!!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

Against Steam Campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
35 answers Last reply
More about systems compete traditional download
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    difool wrote:
    >
    > are you listening to me?????

    Do we have a choice?

    --
    Paul
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 09:25:46 -0000, "Paul Catley"
    <paul.notreallymyaddress@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> are you listening to me?????
    >
    >Do we have a choice?

    People like DiF***wit are what killfiles were invented for.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    difool <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in
    news:cmlb01duj7u402g2s7a371nhm6cfvci851@4ax.com:

    > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:
    >
    >> Besides which, "all" of the publishers are watching. A few are trying
    >> new things such as Steam, and Pay2Download. The rest are waiting to
    >> measure the
    >
    > i checked pay2download and the site looks awful! such an amateur look
    > so i really didn't take it seriously

    Actualy I didnt know there was a site named that. I meant the general
    method, not the site. Please if anyone thought I meant the site,
    disregard.

    > now do you know about d2d? www.direct2drive.com? i don't have any
    > problem with something like this...

    OK I will try to use that as a reference also. And yes that site seems
    well done. However, they are still basically a "test site" for whether to
    d2d concept can work. That site might be doing ok for a game sales site
    but the way they are doing it would not work for most game publishers.

    > if via download is such a good system and something gamers want let it
    > be proved in the market place! let there be choice in the market
    > place! let both system compete for the way to sell games!

    Thank you for your agreement on this matter. What Ive been saying is
    that, they are. They are both being watched for how effective they are
    versus how much fallout they cause. Thats how decisions are made in
    companies which have not yet chosen.

    Those arent the only things being watched. Alot of new marketing models
    are being looked at. pay-for-DirectDownload, the Steam one for copy
    protection. Also the model of smaller games, tiny PDF file manuals, along
    with an immeadiate seperate offering of an "upgrade" and a "strategy
    guide" book is another one (that is a piracy response thing). And various
    responses to store chains no longer wanting to carry PC games

    Gandalf Parker
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    On Sun, 06 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:

    > OK I will try to use that as a reference also. And yes that site seems
    > well done. However, they are still basically a "test site" for whether to
    > d2d concept can work. That site might be doing ok for a game sales site
    > but the way they are doing it would not work for most game publishers.

    look at what you wrote!
    you talk like a publisher!
    you only see things at the publisher side!
    and how about d2d not working also for the gamers!
    you didn't want to think about the gamers side!
    this prove what i talked about previously, you are not one of us gamers!
    you only see things from the point of view of the publisher
    i really had my reasons to point out about your complete bias toward what
    is in the interest of the publishers
    now if that's cause you work for them or simply cause you are sympatetic
    i don't know and it really doesn't bother me... what is important is you
    talk as one at the publishers side, and we all know the publishers and
    gamers have in many issue completely opposite interests

    let me tell you... you are good and you do a much better job than mister
    brad wardell, so congratulations although i hope you only stay sysadmin
    cause you are those if deciding would throw away gamers to trash only to
    impose and force steam

    btw have you seen gabe shot? i really hope you don't "look" like him
    (on offence intended)
    http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg
    this is a priceless shot showing the "thing" behind steam and how
    repulsive it is

    --
    post made in a steam-free computer
    i said "NO" to valve and steam

    against steam campaign
    http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

    steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
    http://www.steamwatch.org/

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:86pb01l7525buvtgs52cc6b5g2c3i2gha1@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 09:25:46 -0000, "Paul Catley"
    > <paul.notreallymyaddress@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> are you listening to me?????
    >>
    >>Do we have a choice?
    >
    > People like DiF***wit are what killfiles were invented for.

    Agreed. He is now plonked.


    > --
    > Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    > please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    > Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    difool wrote:
    > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:
    >
    > > Besides which, "all" of the publishers are watching. A few are
    trying new
    > > things such as Steam, and Pay2Download. The rest are waiting to
    measure the
    >
    > steam is totally wrong cause it takes away any choice
    > its simply trying to FORCE! to MONOPOLIZE! and that is UNACCEPTABLE!
    >
    <SNIP>

    > i don't buy and will not buy ever games via download
    > i want it in a physical medium version cd-rom or dvd-rom but i'm not
    at
    > all against choice... so if you prefer to buy thief or farcry via d2d
    do
    > it but let me buy it the way i want which is in a cd-rom!
    > do you understand?
    > i have no problem with direct2drive cause it doesn't take away
    choice!
    > i think having more choice for the consumer is best!
    > with steam its completely different! they took away ANY CHOICE FROM
    US!
    > they are deciding for us! that's wrong! i will never accept it!
    >
    > if via download is such a good system and something gamers want let
    it
    > be proved in the market place! let there be choice in the market
    place!
    > let both system compete for the way to sell games!
    > are you listening to me?????
    > LET BOTH SYSTEMS COMPETE FOR THE WAY TO SELL GAMES!!!!

    Um... you are aware that you can Half-life 2 in a box, in a shop, with
    a DVD ( a million CDs) in it?

    No doubt I'll be corrected on this, but HL2 is the first mainstream
    title I'm aware of where there's been a choice about how you buy it -
    download or retail box. Before that we had no choice. Or to put it in a
    way you might understand better:

    before that we had NO CHOICE! i repeat NO CHOICE! NONE! do you hear
    me??!!

    Now we're seeing the first few attempts at downloadable software,
    similar to what the music industry has already gone through. And you
    know what - the market will decide. Ultimately, we consumers will spend
    our money where we want to.

    So I really don't understand what you're on about here. We are being
    offered a choice of purchasing channels and the new ones are being
    tested in the open market. We have the choice to use or ignore them.
    What are you compliaining about?
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    > Um... you are aware that you can Half-life 2 in a box, in a shop, with
    > a DVD ( a million CDs) in it?
    >
    > No doubt I'll be corrected on this, but HL2 is the first mainstream
    > title I'm aware of where there's been a choice about how you buy it -
    > download or retail box.

    A "retail box" that's lacking the very feature that makes us prefer the
    retail box in the first place - independence from the publisher once we've
    bought the license.

    The HL2 box is a facade of a retail box set, not the real thing. You're
    still on Valve's leash - only the amount of stuff you have to download to
    get started has been reduced by precaching most of it on a DVD.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    >> No doubt I'll be corrected on this, but HL2 is the first mainstream
    >> title I'm aware of where there's been a choice about how you buy it -
    >> download or retail box.

    Some of the major MMORPG's have offered the option for quite awhile, and
    some smaller independant developers, but I can't think of others.

    Jim
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005, "SpammersDie" wrote:

    > The HL2 box is a facade of a retail box set, not the real thing. You're
    > still on Valve's leash - only the amount of stuff you have to download to
    > get started has been reduced by precaching most of it on a DVD.

    exactly!!!!
    extremely well said!!!

    let me ask you this, wouldn't you want to write a small essay about the
    damage and wrong steam is?

    i'm trying to create a "compilation" of the best posts in this newsgroup
    about pc gamers against steam and i think you would give a very good
    contribution

    basically you could write what you wanted and the number of lines you
    fell necessary and do it not following up to an already created post
    but creating an "independent" from the scratch post

    --
    post made in a steam-free computer
    i said "NO" to valve and steam

    against steam campaign
    http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

    steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
    http://www.steamwatch.org/

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    Chadwick wrote:
    > difool wrote:

    Chadwick... Take a leaf out of our book and killfile the idiot :-)

    --
    Ben Cottrell AKA Bench
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    Chadwick wrote:
    > Ben Cottrell wrote:
    >
    > It's a shame though, when you feel that there's no point adding your
    > point of view, either to correct an error, or to provide a counterpoint
    > for discussion. But sometimes it is like banging your head against a
    > brick wall.
    >

    Yes arguing with difool is like banging your head against the wall.
    Hurts like hell while you doing it but sure feels good when you stop. :-)

    --
    Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger
    Reply Email: jeff (at) tibben (dot) ca
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1107798536.681049.60370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

    > Now we're seeing the first few attempts at downloadable software,
    > similar to what the music industry has already gone through. And you
    > know what - the market will decide. Ultimately, we consumers will spend
    > our money where we want to.
    >
    > So I really don't understand what you're on about here. We are being
    > offered a choice of purchasing channels and the new ones are being
    > tested in the open market. We have the choice to use or ignore them.
    > What are you compliaining about?

    You are not offered a choice to use Steam or not. Why even bother with Steam
    on the retail version? It is an artificial requirement so that Valve can
    have control over who can play their game. That is totally incompatible with
    consumer choice.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    difool wrote:
    .... quite a lot, in response to quite a lot from me. I'll save you the
    bother of reading it all because you'd never get to my point below. But
    I recommend reading it because he's calmed down a lot and makes some
    good points. Also I'm not going to argue over the minor points, but
    just go to the big ones and attempt to keep this thread on topic. So,
    on with the show...

    ACTION!


    Read my post again. The issue is not choice. You were never previously
    offered a choice of whether or not to use online activation or cd-check
    and you are not being offered that choice now. The only choice you have
    is whether to buy the product or not.

    If Steam didn't exist, and HL2 came as a stand-alone game with a
    CD-check, excatly the same as HL1, would you be demanding the choice
    between that and the Steam-authenticated version? I suspect not.

    The issue is that you can only play HL2 through Steam. Ignoring the
    technical details of updates, offline mode etc, the big problem with
    Steam is:
    - You can only install and play the game while Steam is up and running.
    - Valve have decided that a single-player game should work like a
    multi-player game and require a third party.
    - HL2 is being sold as a service, not a product.


    The market will decide. If the lure of HL2 (single- and multi-player)
    is not enough to encourage gamers to use Steam then Valve will have to
    do something about it. If HL2 is not a good enough reason to use Steam,
    then nothing is.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    Kroagnon wrote:
    > You are not offered a choice to use Steam or not. Why even bother
    with Steam
    > on the retail version? It is an artificial requirement so that Valve
    can
    > have control over who can play their game. That is totally
    incompatible with
    > consumer choice.

    OK, let me flip that on its head. I bought FarCry. Wanted to buy it in
    the shop, in a box, and I wanted it to come with automatic patching
    because I'd heard there were some patches available, and I wanted an
    easy way of locating and downloading mods and map packs. I don't want
    to waste my DVDs making backups, so I want to be able to download the
    whole game if I corrupt any if the files. I don't mind authenticating
    my purchase with a central server in order to get my ability to do
    this.

    You know what? I couldn't get that. All I could get was the same box,
    no matter where I bought it.

    I wasn't offered a choice to use a Steam-like system or not.

    This is my point about choice - you weren't offered a choice of
    product before and you aren't offered a choice now.

    The only difference in "choice" is that Steam opens up a new purchasing
    channel, which hasn't been done for a mainstream title before (at
    least, not one with this much attention on it).
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    Jethro[AGHL] wrote:
    > Chadwick wrote:
    >
    >> Ben Cottrell wrote:
    >>
    >> It's a shame though, when you feel that there's no point adding your
    >> point of view, either to correct an error, or to provide a counterpoint
    >> for discussion. But sometimes it is like banging your head against a
    >> brick wall.
    >>
    >
    > Yes arguing with difool is like banging your head against the wall.
    > Hurts like hell while you doing it but sure feels good when you stop. :-)

    Except for the serious headache which requires excessive consumption of
    paracetamol to rid the thumping pain ;)

    --
    Ben Cottrell AKA Bench

    All these modern celebrities are endorsing supermarket products now...
    I got a pack of sausages from Tesco the other day and there was this
    picture of Anthony Worral Thompson on the front. Below, it read 'prick
    with a fork'.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    SpammersDie wrote:
    > "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1107945742.213748.313230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > - Valve have decided that a single-player game should work like a
    > > multi-player game and require a third party.
    >
    > Then they shouldn't be allowed to market HL2 as a "single-player"
    game. It
    > lacks the very thing that makes a single-player game single-player:
    the
    > ability to play in privacy at any time without depending on some
    third party
    > jackass being alive. The fact that the third party jackass is Valve
    rather
    > than another player doesn't change any of that.

    No, a single-player game is a game where there is only one human
    *player*. It's got nothing to do with how you buy the game or what copy
    protection or authentication is used.

    Hitherto, you have been able to play single-player games "in privacy at
    any time without depending on some third party jackass being alive".
    Now you do need a jackass, just like you do for a multi-player game.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    Kroagnon wrote:
    > "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1107944096.744934.172430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > > I wasn't offered a choice to use a Steam-like system or not.
    > >
    > > This is my point about choice - you weren't offered a choice of
    > > product before and you aren't offered a choice now.
    > >
    > > The only difference in "choice" is that Steam opens up a new
    purchasing
    > > channel, which hasn't been done for a mainstream title before (at
    > > least, not one with this much attention on it).
    >
    > If auto-updating and downloading the game online is that important to
    you,
    > then fine. But you totally gloss over the fact that you have to use
    Steam
    > either retail or Steam-downloaded - where's the choice there?

    There isn't one. Same as before. You even quoted me on this point.
    Read my post again. Previously you had to buy a game without Steam - no
    choice. Now you have to buy a game with Steam - no choice.

    As I said in reply to Difool's message, choice is not an issue. The
    issue is that the product you buy now requires acknowledgement from a
    third party for it to work. Previously this has only applied to
    multi-player games but now Valve are applying it to a single-player
    game. The nature of the product has changed, but your choice is still
    just "do I buy this or not", not "I want to buy this in a different
    version".
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1107944096.744934.172430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

    > I wasn't offered a choice to use a Steam-like system or not.
    >
    > This is my point about choice - you weren't offered a choice of
    > product before and you aren't offered a choice now.
    >
    > The only difference in "choice" is that Steam opens up a new purchasing
    > channel, which hasn't been done for a mainstream title before (at
    > least, not one with this much attention on it).

    If auto-updating and downloading the game online is that important to you,
    then fine. But you totally gloss over the fact that you have to use Steam
    either retail or Steam-downloaded - where's the choice there?
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <1107944096.744934.172430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >OK, let me flip that on its head. I bought FarCry. Wanted to buy it in
    >the shop, in a box, and I wanted it to come with automatic patching
    >because I'd heard there were some patches available, and I wanted an
    >easy way of locating and downloading mods and map packs. I don't want
    >to waste my DVDs making backups, so I want to be able to download the
    >whole game if I corrupt any if the files. I don't mind authenticating
    >my purchase with a central server in order to get my ability to do
    >this.
    >
    >You know what? I couldn't get that. All I could get was the same box,
    >no matter where I bought it.

    So complain about it then. No one's going to step on your neck for doing so.
    Choice is almost always better.


    >This is my point about choice - you weren't offered a choice of
    >product before and you aren't offered a choice now.

    As far as automatic updates/patching and an "easy way of locating and
    downloading mods and map packs" goes, many games/publishers did/do offer
    this... and do so without Steam's controversy or unduly inconveniencing or
    alienating anyone. Choice exists--you can download patches and apply them
    manually or patch via a built-in updater. So, again, if you want to be mad at
    CryTech or UbiSoft for not including a built-in auto-updater (they didn't?),
    feel free to complain.


    >The only difference in "choice" is that Steam opens up a new purchasing
    >channel, which hasn't been done for a mainstream title before (at
    >least, not one with this much attention on it).

    No, the difference is that Valve seeks to cripple or shutdown a
    distribution/purchasing channel that HAS BEEN DONE, that IS mainstream, and
    has worked very well and continues to do so for many people far better than
    Steam does... to no one's benefit but themselves.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <1107945742.213748.313230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >If HL2 is not a good enough reason to use Steam, then nothing is.

    That statement alone should be enough to make any publisher/developer think
    twice about Steam... because, for more than a few gamers, HL2 is NOT a good
    enough reason to submit to Steam. Were HL2 (or, for that matter, HL1)
    anything less as a game, Steam probably wouldn't even be the tiniest blip on
    our radars.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1107945742.213748.313230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > - Valve have decided that a single-player game should work like a
    > multi-player game and require a third party.

    Then they shouldn't be allowed to market HL2 as a "single-player" game. It
    lacks the very thing that makes a single-player game single-player: the
    ability to play in privacy at any time without depending on some third party
    jackass being alive. The fact that the third party jackass is Valve rather
    than another player doesn't change any of that.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "SpammersDie" wrote

    > "Chadwick" wrote

    >> - Valve have decided that a single-player game should work like a
    >> multi-player game and require a third party.

    > Then they shouldn't be allowed to market HL2 as a "single-player" game. It
    > lacks the very thing that makes a single-player game single-player

    The ability to play against computer AI rather than other human players?

    I think it has that.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    "Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
    news:cud77u$4bi$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
    <snip>
    >
    > >The only difference in "choice" is that Steam opens up a new purchasing
    > >channel, which hasn't been done for a mainstream title before (at
    > >least, not one with this much attention on it).
    >
    > No, the difference is that Valve seeks to cripple or shutdown a
    > distribution/purchasing channel that HAS BEEN DONE, that IS mainstream,
    and
    > has worked very well and continues to do so for many people far better
    than
    > Steam does... to no one's benefit but themselves.

    A system that works well? The current system is messy for some of us; I
    don't want to drive to a store to buy a CD in a box. It's a waste of gas
    and trees. So Steam does benefit some of us besides the developer.

    Save a tree and go Steam.

    As to benefitting themselves....

    http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html

    "Valve sued Vivendi for copyright infringement back in 2002 over their
    unauthorized distribution of our products to cyber cafés," Lombardi told
    GameSpot last Friday. "We later had to add breach of contract claims for,
    among other things, refusing to pay us royalties owed and delaying Condition
    Zero out of the holiday season."
    .....

    ""...Vivendi responded by making a number of claims in an attempt to
    invalidate our agreement and be awarded the ownership of the Half-Life
    intellectual property.

    Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is sold
    thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).

    So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the
    publisher wants to claim its intellectual property. No wonder the
    developer looked into other distribution methods.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    Jeff wrote:
    > In article <1107944096.744934.172430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >OK, let me flip that on its head. I bought FarCry. Wanted to buy it
    in
    > >the shop, in a box, and I wanted it to come with automatic patching
    > >because I'd heard there were some patches available, and I wanted an
    > >easy way of locating and downloading mods and map packs. I don't
    want
    > >to waste my DVDs making backups, so I want to be able to download
    the
    > >whole game if I corrupt any if the files. I don't mind
    authenticating
    > >my purchase with a central server in order to get my ability to do
    > >this.
    > >
    > >You know what? I couldn't get that. All I could get was the same
    box,
    > >no matter where I bought it.
    >
    > So complain about it then. No one's going to step on your neck for
    doing so.
    > Choice is almost always better.
    >
    >
    > >This is my point about choice - you weren't offered a choice of
    > >product before and you aren't offered a choice now.
    >
    > As far as automatic updates/patching and an "easy way of locating and

    > downloading mods and map packs" goes, many games/publishers did/do
    offer
    > this... and do so without Steam's controversy or unduly
    inconveniencing or
    > alienating anyone. Choice exists--you can download patches and apply
    them
    > manually or patch via a built-in updater.

    Is this what you dislike about Steam? That you do not have the option
    of manually checking for, finding, downloading and installing an
    update, but are forced to use the auto-update if you want to update at
    all?
    Is that the choice that you feel is missing in Steam games, but that a
    lot of other games offer?


    > >The only difference in "choice" is that Steam opens up a new
    purchasing
    > >channel, which hasn't been done for a mainstream title before (at
    > >least, not one with this much attention on it).
    >
    > No, the difference is that Valve seeks to cripple or shutdown a
    > distribution/purchasing channel that HAS BEEN DONE, that IS
    mainstream, and
    > has worked very well and continues to do so for many people far
    better than
    > Steam does... to no one's benefit but themselves.

    Are Valve trying to kill off the retail box as we know it? Do they
    really want all PC games to be sold as software downloads with no
    physical product?
    Maybe they do. Right now I can only say that HL2 is being sold in a box
    as well as down the wire. Perhaps Valve's next single-player release
    will not be available in stores, but only as a download. If the amount
    of money saved by cutting out the middle-man was greater than the
    amount lost by people who can't/won't download, then they may well do
    that. If they do that and other companies follow suit, then I guess
    we'll need to add "broadband" to our next upgrade as well as "decent
    graphics card".
    Personally, I think there are still plenty of people who have to or
    prefer to buy the boxed version. Enough to keep the shops alive for the
    foreseeable future. Beyond that, I do not have a crystal ball. Perhaps
    we should keep an eye on the music industry where this is already
    happening. We may get a glimpse of the future there.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    Jeff wrote:
    > In article <1107967299.520026.313410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Hitherto, you have been able to play single-player games "in privacy
    at
    > >any time without depending on some third party jackass being alive".
    > >Now you do need a jackass, just like you do for a multi-player game.
    >
    > Then can't you see how upsetting this is for folks who have to deal
    with too
    > many jackasses as it is? ;-)

    I can understand it being inconvenient because the install takes longer
    than expected and there is no guidance in the retail box on what to do.

    I sympathise a little with those who feel they have been
    disenfranchised because they don't have an internet connection, or they
    have a very slow one. They must be disappointed. The box does say
    "internet connection" under minimum requirements, but it should make
    clear that this is a necessity for single-player as well, and that a
    fast connection is recommended. However, I don't think it is "wrong" of
    Valve to make this a requirement any more than it is wrong of them to
    force me to get another graphics card to play the game. The internet is
    becoming ubiquitous - this is just another aspect of that.

    And, although it hasn't (yet?) affected me, I can see why people are
    upset that they need Steam to be up and running to install the
    single-player game and get updates. Steam does make it easier to
    download and install patches and new content, but what happens if it
    fails technically or commercially? Your game isn't available, that's
    what happens.
    This is the way multi-player online games are organised (necessarily)
    and now Valve is saying a game is a game is a game. Doesn't matter how
    many players - the same framework is used for supporting the game.
    Is this morally wrong, or illegal? I think not. Inconvenient? sure, if
    you can't get validated for whatever reason. Upsetting? yes, if you
    don't have a (good) internet connection, or if Steam won't validate
    you.

    And I suppose it must be upsetting for some people that they can't
    easily sell the game afterwards or lend it to a friend.

    (Valve could easily address some of these issues by including better
    documentation in the retail box on what Steam is and how to install it
    & HL2 (Vivendi may disagree;)), making the internet requirement clearer
    on the box itself, and making it possible to de-register a game from
    your Steam Account so that it can be sold on.)

    You have to judge whether HL2 and its extended family are worth the
    inconveniences of Steam. Are you OK to run the risk that one day Steam
    might not be around, and your game might be no more than a HL2 themed
    coaster? These are the same questions that multi-player gamers have had
    to answer for some time. Now you have to answer them for a
    single-player game.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <1107967299.520026.313410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Hitherto, you have been able to play single-player games "in privacy at
    >any time without depending on some third party jackass being alive".
    >Now you do need a jackass, just like you do for a multi-player game.

    Then can't you see how upsetting this is for folks who have to deal with too
    many jackasses as it is? ;-)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <nQuOd.32439$uL5.23364@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:

    >A system that works well?

    Yes, very well.


    >The current system is messy for some of us; I
    >don't want to drive to a store to buy a CD in a box. It's a waste of gas
    >and trees. So Steam does benefit some of us besides the developer.

    You can save the gas by walking to the store then... and recycle the box. ;-)

    S'okay, really concerned about the environment, are you? What about all the
    energy required to power the Steam servers? Hell, maybe you should give up
    gaming altogether, since your computer is also soaking up valuable energy
    resources. Don't be a hypocrite, man... sell your car, convert your house to
    all-renewable energy sources, recycle everything!


    >As to benefitting themselves....
    >
    >http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html
    >
    >"Valve sued Vivendi for copyright infringement back in 2002 over their
    >unauthorized distribution of our products to cyber cafés," Lombardi told
    >GameSpot last Friday. "We later had to add breach of contract claims for,
    >among other things, refusing to pay us royalties owed and delaying Condition
    >Zero out of the holiday season."

    Ahem... yes, benefitting themselves. Quite obviously.


    >""...Vivendi responded by making a number of claims in an attempt to
    >invalidate our agreement and be awarded the ownership of the Half-Life
    >intellectual property.

    Here's the other side of the story:

    Valve did not originally own the IP rights to Half-Life, Sierra did.
    Publishers that fund the development of a project typically own the product...
    in this case the IP rights of the software.

    "In 1997, Valve and Sierra entered into two agreements whereby Valve undertook
    to develop certain computer games and Sierra undertook to manufacture, market,
    and distribute the games. Among other benefits, these 1997 agreements granted
    Sierra intellectual property rights in the games."


    Sierra only gave the IP rights to Valve because Valve wouldn't work on HL2
    otherwise...

    "Beginning in 1999, following the success of its first game, Valve began to
    threaten Sierra that it would halt or slow development of the remaining games
    it was obligated to develop unless Sierra relinquished certain rights under
    the 1997 agreements. Sierra eventually capitulated to these demands and,
    relying on misrepresentations by Valve, entered into a new software publishing
    agreement (SPA) with Valve in 2001."


    ... and they were misled to believe that they'd be HL2's primary distributor.

    "Among other concessions, Sierra agreed to relinquish intellectual property
    rights and to allow Valve certain rights to the online distribution of games.
    Valve did not disclose during the negotiations over the 2001 SPA that it was
    in the process of developing a new technology called Steam that would allow
    consumers who would normally purchase games from Sierra/VUG at retail to
    purchase those products online directly from Valve."

    "During the parties' negotiations...Counterclaim Defendants [Valve] repeatedly
    and falsely assured Sierra and VUG that retail sales would remain "the key to
    [their] strategy." In September 2000, for example, Newell told Hubert Joly,
    then VUG's CEO, that "online is a way to nurture the retail business" and that
    he 'could not understand how one can make money online today.'

    "Sierra and VUG would later learn that these statements were flatly
    false...Incredibly, Counterclaim Defendant Newell also stated that he 'could
    not understand how one can make money online today,' plainly with the
    intention to falsely imply that Valve had no present or future strategy to
    engage in widespread online distribution of the games. This misleading
    half-truth was Newell's deliberate concealment of the extent to which Valve
    intended through the parties' negotiations to appropriate the substantial
    value of the distribution rights to Valve, rather than to Sierra and VUG."


    Part of the agreement where Sierra turned over the IP rights to Valve was that
    Valve would diligently and continuously work on HL2 to completion, instead of
    dragging their feet as they'd threatened to do before. Instead Valve slows up
    development ("oops, someone somehow stole the source code to HL2") so that its
    release coincides with Steam's.

    "... including Sierra/VUG's promissory fraud claim based on Valve's false
    promises that it would continuously develop games to completion; Sierra/VUG's
    fraud claim and claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
    dealing based on Valve's concealment of Steam and its strategically delayed
    development of the Valve games to coincide with the commercial release of
    Steam...."


    >Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is sold
    >thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).

    Ahem... so?


    >So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the

    "Under paid, not paid"? Who are you kidding.


    >publisher wants to claim its intellectual property.

    Reclaim, you mean... after being lied to.

    "... and Sierra/VUG's claim for declaratory relief regarding its right to
    reversion of the Half-Life intellectual property based on Valve's failure to
    continuously develop the Valve games."


    >No wonder the
    >developer looked into other distribution methods.

    Wrong. They were probably already working on "other distibution methods," ie.
    Steam, when they got the IP rights to HL in 2001.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <1108035326.274989.225340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Is this what you dislike about Steam? That you do not have the option
    >of manually checking for, finding, downloading and installing an
    >update, but are forced to use the auto-update if you want to update at
    >all?
    >Is that the choice that you feel is missing in Steam games, but that a
    >lot of other games offer?

    That is one of the reasons. I primarily don't like Steam because it requires
    me to give up my anonymity to install and play the single-player game and it
    dramatically reduces my assurance that I'll be able to install, patch, and
    play my purchased games unhindered.


    >that. If they do that and other companies follow suit, then I guess
    >we'll need to add "broadband" to our next upgrade as well as "decent
    >graphics card".

    That's simply not an option for many people. Not unless they're willing to
    spend $10K-$100K to phone companies to install the infrastructure necessary to
    get DSL to their homes. And even if BB is available, is it affordable?


    >Personally, I think there are still plenty of people who have to or
    >prefer to buy the boxed version. Enough to keep the shops alive for the
    >foreseeable future. Beyond that, I do not have a crystal ball. Perhaps

    I am hoping that this proves to be so. I just won't have my worse-case
    scenario happen because I never objected.


    >we should keep an eye on the music industry where this is already
    >happening. We may get a glimpse of the future there.

    If this is happening in the music industry, I really wasn't aware of it.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    "Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
    news:cufu50$9e8$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
    > In article <nQuOd.32439$uL5.23364@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog"
    <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
    >
    > >A system that works well?
    >
    > Yes, very well.
    >

    Show me a system that works well for everyone, everytime, and everywhere,
    and I'll show you the true meaning of life.

    >
    > >The current system is messy for some of us; I
    > >don't want to drive to a store to buy a CD in a box. It's a waste of gas
    > >and trees. So Steam does benefit some of us besides the developer.
    >
    > You can save the gas by walking to the store then... and recycle the box.
    ;-)
    >

    Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm looking at
    riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in a gas
    guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.

    As to the box. They don't recycle cardboard in my area. :(

    > S'okay, really concerned about the environment, are you? What about all
    the
    > energy required to power the Steam servers? Hell, maybe you should give
    up
    > gaming altogether, since your computer is also soaking up valuable energy
    > resources. Don't be a hypocrite, man... sell your car, convert your house
    to
    > all-renewable energy sources, recycle everything!
    >

    I asked that question awhile back. What the enegry cost was for d/l vs
    retail box? While I'm waiting for that answer, I've decided to cut back on
    HL2 use, online use, and chatting about Steam. ;)

    As to recycling, I'm trying. Now if I can just get the $%#$% post office
    to stop sending me junk mail.

    >
    > >As to benefitting themselves....
    > >
    > >http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html
    > >
    > >"Valve sued Vivendi for copyright infringement back in 2002 over their
    > >unauthorized distribution of our products to cyber cafés," Lombardi told
    > >GameSpot last Friday. "We later had to add breach of contract claims for,
    > >among other things, refusing to pay us royalties owed and delaying
    Condition
    > >Zero out of the holiday season."
    >
    > Ahem... yes, benefitting themselves. Quite obviously.
    >

    I've fired off an email to Bill Gates requesting him to provide the
    following benefits to users:

    1. Deliver bug free software
    2. Low cost software (as in free)
    3. And a cup of coffee with that software

    I'm still waiting for reply.


    >
    > >""...Vivendi responded by making a number of claims in an attempt to
    > >invalidate our agreement and be awarded the ownership of the Half-Life
    > >intellectual property.
    >
    > Here's the other side of the story:
    >
    > Valve did not originally own the IP rights to Half-Life, Sierra did.
    > Publishers that fund the development of a project typically own the
    product...
    > in this case the IP rights of the software.
    >
    > "In 1997, Valve and Sierra entered into two agreements whereby Valve
    undertook
    > to develop certain computer games and Sierra undertook to manufacture,
    market,
    > and distribute the games. Among other benefits, these 1997 agreements
    granted
    > Sierra intellectual property rights in the games."
    >

    These seems to be the case in most agreements with Publishers/Developers.
    Even when the developer actually creates the product on their own.

    >
    > Sierra only gave the IP rights to Valve because Valve wouldn't work on HL2
    > otherwise...
    >

    This is a little unusal in the software Developer/Publisher relations isn't
    it?

    > "Beginning in 1999, following the success of its first game, Valve began
    to
    > threaten Sierra that it would halt or slow development of the remaining
    games
    > it was obligated to develop unless Sierra relinquished certain rights
    under
    > the 1997 agreements. Sierra eventually capitulated to these demands and,
    > relying on misrepresentations by Valve, entered into a new software
    publishing
    > agreement (SPA) with Valve in 2001."
    >
    >
    > .. and they were misled to believe that they'd be HL2's primary
    distributor.
    >
    > "Among other concessions, Sierra agreed to relinquish intellectual
    property
    > rights and to allow Valve certain rights to the online distribution of
    games.
    > Valve did not disclose during the negotiations over the 2001 SPA that it
    was
    > in the process of developing a new technology called Steam that would
    allow
    > consumers who would normally purchase games from Sierra/VUG at retail to
    > purchase those products online directly from Valve."
    >
    > "During the parties' negotiations...Counterclaim Defendants [Valve]
    repeatedly
    > and falsely assured Sierra and VUG that retail sales would remain "the key
    to
    > [their] strategy." In September 2000, for example, Newell told Hubert
    Joly,
    > then VUG's CEO, that "online is a way to nurture the retail business" and
    that
    > he 'could not understand how one can make money online today.'
    >
    > "Sierra and VUG would later learn that these statements were flatly
    > false...Incredibly, Counterclaim Defendant Newell also stated that he
    'could
    > not understand how one can make money online today,' plainly with the
    > intention to falsely imply that Valve had no present or future strategy to
    > engage in widespread online distribution of the games. This misleading
    > half-truth was Newell's deliberate concealment of the extent to which
    Valve
    > intended through the parties' negotiations to appropriate the substantial
    > value of the distribution rights to Valve, rather than to Sierra and VUG."
    >
    >
    > Part of the agreement where Sierra turned over the IP rights to Valve was
    that
    > Valve would diligently and continuously work on HL2 to completion, instead
    of
    > dragging their feet as they'd threatened to do before. Instead Valve
    slows up
    > development ("oops, someone somehow stole the source code to HL2") so that
    its
    > release coincides with Steam's.
    >
    > "... including Sierra/VUG's promissory fraud claim based on Valve's false
    > promises that it would continuously develop games to completion;
    Sierra/VUG's
    > fraud claim and claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
    > dealing based on Valve's concealment of Steam and its strategically
    delayed
    > development of the Valve games to coincide with the commercial release of
    > Steam...."
    >
    >
    > >Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is
    sold
    > >thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).
    >
    > Ahem... so?
    >

    So we might be paying a lot of $ to the publishers?


    >
    > >So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the
    >
    > "Under paid, not paid"? Who are you kidding.
    >

    Show me a single person on this world that thinks they're overpaid, and I'll
    show you a unicorn. ;)

    >
    > >publisher wants to claim its intellectual property.
    >
    > Reclaim, you mean... after being lied to.
    >

    Probably a poor choice of words on my part. If the original agreement was
    truly in fact the way that the publisher stated it.

    > "... and Sierra/VUG's claim for declaratory relief regarding its right to
    > reversion of the Half-Life intellectual property based on Valve's failure
    to
    > continuously develop the Valve games."
    >
    >
    > >No wonder the
    > >developer looked into other distribution methods.
    >
    > Wrong. They were probably already working on "other distibution methods,"
    ie.
    > Steam, when they got the IP rights to HL in 2001.
    >

    Let's call Gabe and find out. ;)
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    Jeff wrote:
    > > >Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm
    looking at
    > >riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in
    a gas
    > >guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.
    >
    > No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to
    public
    > transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
    >

    </pedantry>

    If we're trying to remove exhaust emissions from the purchase process,
    then neither a bus nor a delivery van will be of any use. Better than a
    car, I grant you.

    </pedantry>
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    Chadwick wrote:
    > If we're trying to remove exhaust emissions from the purchase
    process,
    > then neither a bus nor a delivery van will be of any use. Better than
    a
    > car, I grant you.

    In what sense is the exhaust emission from a bus or delivery van,
    spewing out carcinogenic particulates into the atmosphere, 'better than
    a car', which produces very little pollution at all?

    And, in any case, how can anyone who claims to care about pollution
    justify wasting maybe 500W of power for hours at a time playing
    computer games?

    Mark
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <PbVOd.33364$uL5.25851@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
    >"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message

    >> Yes, very well.

    >Show me a system that works well for everyone, everytime, and everywhere,
    >and I'll show you the true meaning of life.

    I dare say that the retail model satisfies most gamers very well... far moreso
    than Steam. However, if there's a market for Steam, it's fine with me if they
    add it as an option.


    >Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm looking at
    >riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in a gas
    >guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.

    No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to public
    transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.


    >As to the box. They don't recycle cardboard in my area. :(

    Well, you could always eat them. You probably need the fiber in your diet
    anyway.


    >As to recycling, I'm trying. Now if I can just get the $%#$% post office
    >to stop sending me junk mail.

    Good luck on that last one.


    >I've fired off an email to Bill Gates requesting him to provide the
    >following benefits to users:
    >
    >1. Deliver bug free software
    >2. Low cost software (as in free)
    >3. And a cup of coffee with that software
    >
    >I'm still waiting for reply.

    Let me know if you ever hear back. I may have heard a rumor that Gates is
    looking to acquire Starbucks....


    >> Here's the other side of the story:
    >>
    >> Valve did not originally own the IP rights to Half-Life, Sierra did.
    >> Publishers that fund the development of a project typically own the
    >product...
    >> in this case the IP rights of the software.
    >>
    >> "In 1997, Valve and Sierra entered into two agreements whereby Valve
    >undertook
    >> to develop certain computer games and Sierra undertook to manufacture,
    >market,
    >> and distribute the games. Among other benefits, these 1997 agreements
    >granted
    >> Sierra intellectual property rights in the games."
    >>
    >
    >These seems to be the case in most agreements with Publishers/Developers.
    >Even when the developer actually creates the product on their own.

    Actually, I seriously doubt that last bit. In any case, it was clearly stated
    that Valve didn't create HL1 on its own.


    >> Sierra only gave the IP rights to Valve because Valve wouldn't work on HL2
    >> otherwise...
    >
    >This is a little unusal in the software Developer/Publisher relations isn't
    >it?

    I'd have no idea... though it did sound incredibly childish on Valve's part.
    I got the image of a little boy holding his breath until he gets his way.


    >> >Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is
    >sold
    >> >thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).
    >>
    >> Ahem... so?

    >So we might be paying a lot of $ to the publishers?

    Again, so? It's not like we would paying any less overall.


    >> >So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the
    >>
    >> "Under paid, not paid"? Who are you kidding.
    >
    >Show me a single person on this world that thinks they're overpaid, and I'll
    >show you a unicorn. ;)

    Actually, I'm fairly certain that I could (though getting said person to
    admit it openly might be harder), but... show me a modern pro football player
    who isn't overpaid (IMHO) and I'll let you ride that unicorn. ;-)


    >> >publisher wants to claim its intellectual property.
    >>
    >> Reclaim, you mean... after being lied to.
    >
    >Probably a poor choice of words on my part. If the original agreement was
    >truly in fact the way that the publisher stated it.

    Yeah, if... but I'm sure the original agreement had to be documented.


    >> >No wonder the
    >> >developer looked into other distribution methods.
    >>
    >> Wrong. They were probably already working on "other distibution methods,"
    >ie.
    >> Steam, when they got the IP rights to HL in 2001.
    >
    >Let's call Gabe and find out. ;)

    LOL. Yes, I'm sure that he'll give you the straight story. ;-)
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    "Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
    news:cuidkv$960$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
    <snip>
    > No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to public
    > transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
    >

    The point is to reduce emissions & gas consumation from vehicles used in
    obtaining a game. Taking a bus or ordering from online web site achieves
    neither of these.

    However, if we were to look at all the game boxes delivered across a country
    like the US, and counted up all the trucks used (and gamers car), mileage,
    emission, and gas consumation and compared that to a Steam like system.
    What would be the final total?

    I'm betting that it's with the current gas guzzling system.

    >
    > >As to the box. They don't recycle cardboard in my area. :(
    >
    > Well, you could always eat them. You probably need the fiber in your diet
    > anyway.
    >

    I do need fiber. And most cereal is just carboard anyway. So no harm in
    adding a little pc game box to my morning diet.

    <snip>
    > Let me know if you ever hear back. I may have heard a rumor that Gates is
    > looking to acquire Starbucks....
    >

    Just think, MS software for free, and a cup of Starbucks to go with that.
    Is that heaven or what.

    >
    >
    <snip>
    > >
    > >Show me a single person on this world that thinks they're overpaid, and
    I'll
    > >show you a unicorn. ;)
    >
    > Actually, I'm fairly certain that I could (though getting said person to
    > admit it openly might be harder), but... show me a modern pro football
    player
    > who isn't overpaid (IMHO) and I'll let you ride that unicorn. ;-)
    >

    I heard that. But again, you got to get him to say he think he's over
    paid. And no use of drugs, shock, or other forms of torture. ;)
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <1108138505.602910.17810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >Jeff wrote:
    >> > >Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm
    >looking at
    >> >riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in
    >a gas
    >> >guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.
    >>
    >> No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to
    >public
    >> transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
    >>
    >
    ></pedantry>
    >
    >If we're trying to remove exhaust emissions from the purchase process,
    >then neither a bus nor a delivery van will be of any use. Better than a
    >car, I grant you.
    >
    ></pedantry>

    :-) a) Buses will run their routes regardless, so you may as well ride, and
    b) some cities use buses that run either electric or hydrogen fuel cells.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <uXaPd.37403$uL5.34864@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
    >news:cuidkv$960$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
    ><snip>
    >> No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to public
    >> transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
    >>
    >
    >The point is to reduce emissions & gas consumation from vehicles used in
    >obtaining a game. Taking a bus or ordering from online web site achieves
    >neither of these.

    Buses and mail delivery run by your house regardless.


    >However, if we were to look at all the game boxes delivered across a country
    >like the US, and counted up all the trucks used (and gamers car), mileage,
    >emission, and gas consumation and compared that to a Steam like system.
    >What would be the final total?

    We're not looking at cross-country totals, we're looking at you, who is soooo
    "concerned" about it. Seriously, any gamer that's that concerned about the
    environment shouldn't own a computer... at least not for gaming, anyway.


    >I'm betting that it's with the current gas guzzling system.

    Do you seriously think that Steam will affect that "system" either way?
Ask a new question

Read More

Games IBM Steam Video Games