let both systems compete! traditional vs download

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

Do we have a choice?

--
Paul

 

[Andrew]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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).

 

[Guest]

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'.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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".

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[jeff]

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.

 

[jeff]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[vinCe]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.