Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

God, I don't love it (s-t-e-a-m)

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 4:52:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
don't want to troll, but I honestly am not loving this whole "steam"
thing. So much so that I felt compelled to add my voice to the
"non-pro-steam" crowd, no matter how little it changes things on this
newsgroup.

First I didn't use my HL key when setting up Steam, so I did not get
all of my previous HL products (well, except for Blue Shift...sigh...)
quickly installed and available.

I then didn't buy Half-Life 2 via Steam (silver) it downloaded easily,
unlocked quickly, and I got the whole Valve catalog to boot, including
games such as Condition Zero.

I had a few problems with stuttering in HL2, but automagically got
patches as soon as they were available, fixes that took care of the
problem. No hunting for patches, registering with sites to download,
and so on. Start the game up and it's up to date. ***HOWEVER***, I
also understand that I could have all these benefits even if Steam did
not require online validation for single-player games, and it also
offered the patches separately for archiving, just like e.g. Stardock
Central does.

I appreciate the online aspect of Steam, being able to get a server
list for all the Valve games, not just a separate server listing for
HL2 or Counter Strike, or whatever. ***HOWEVER***, I also understand
that I could have all these benefits even if Steam did not require
online validation for single-player games.

Now I have ADSL, so download speeds aren't a problem for me,
but I'm honestly seeing downsides here. Having to connect to Steam
servers every time I install a Steam retail game, not being able to
archive updates if I wish, not being able to maintain Steam accounts
freely like transferring individual games from one account to another.

Then again, there are some advantages to Steam HL2 as well, like no CD
check garbage, no hunting for the latest update, automatic patches, an
integrated launcher, plenty of additional content being added nearly
weekly... ***HOWEVER***, I also understand that I could have all these
benefits even if Steam did not require online validation for
single-player games.

I wish gamers were given a choice whether they want to validate their
HL2 retail single-player game online or use conventional CD checks
instead and not having to rely on the uptime of Steam servers (like
the recent 14 hour downtime), I really do.



I really debated about posting, but I guess I really am a big
"hateboi" of Steam...I'm finding my flameproof long underwear as I
write this. ;-) Brrr, the walter mitty crowd will surely now come
after me. They are such a tough crowd.

More about : god love

Anonymous
February 1, 2005 4:52:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku wrote:
> I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
> don't want to troll, but I honestly am not loving this whole "steam"
> thing. So much so that I felt compelled to add my voice to the
> "non-pro-steam" crowd, no matter how little it changes things on this
> newsgroup.
>
> First I didn't use my HL key when setting up Steam, so I did not get
> all of my previous HL products (well, except for Blue Shift...sigh...)
> quickly installed and available.
>
> I then didn't buy Half-Life 2 via Steam (silver) it downloaded easily,
> unlocked quickly, and I got the whole Valve catalog to boot, including
> games such as Condition Zero.
>
> I had a few problems with stuttering in HL2, but automagically got
> patches as soon as they were available, fixes that took care of the
> problem. No hunting for patches, registering with sites to download,
> and so on. Start the game up and it's up to date. ***HOWEVER***, I
> also understand that I could have all these benefits even if Steam did
> not require online validation for single-player games, and it also
> offered the patches separately for archiving, just like e.g. Stardock
> Central does.
>
> I appreciate the online aspect of Steam, being able to get a server
> list for all the Valve games, not just a separate server listing for
> HL2 or Counter Strike, or whatever. ***HOWEVER***, I also understand
> that I could have all these benefits even if Steam did not require
> online validation for single-player games.
>
> Now I have ADSL, so download speeds aren't a problem for me,
> but I'm honestly seeing downsides here. Having to connect to Steam
> servers every time I install a Steam retail game, not being able to
> archive updates if I wish, not being able to maintain Steam accounts
> freely like transferring individual games from one account to another.
>
> Then again, there are some advantages to Steam HL2 as well, like no CD
> check garbage, no hunting for the latest update, automatic patches, an
> integrated launcher, plenty of additional content being added nearly
> weekly... ***HOWEVER***, I also understand that I could have all these
> benefits even if Steam did not require online validation for
> single-player games.
>
> I wish gamers were given a choice whether they want to validate their
> HL2 retail single-player game online or use conventional CD checks
> instead and not having to rely on the uptime of Steam servers (like
> the recent 14 hour downtime), I really do.
>
>
>
> I really debated about posting, but I guess I really am a big
> "hateboi" of Steam...I'm finding my flameproof long underwear as I
> write this. ;-) Brrr, the walter mitty crowd will surely now come
> after me. They are such a tough crowd.
>


"Captain, the turret fills with steam,
The feed-pipes burst below --
You can hear the hiss of the helpless ram,
You can hear the twisted runners jam."
And he answered, "Turn and go!"


--
best regards, mat
np: [winamp not running]

www.pdxshows.net
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 4:52:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:04:38 -0000, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I really debated about posting, but I guess I really am a big
> >> "hateboi" of Steam...>
> >
> >Tell us something we didn't know ...
> >The jig is up. HL-2/Steam is OLD news, why keep on about it ? You
must have
> >another agenda.
>
> Ok, for the less bright ones, this was a simple jab at the similar
> thread posted a bit earlier by Kevin Steel, which was pro-Steam. Look
> for a thread called "God, I love it (s-t-e-a-m)". I think normal
> people could see the similarities.

I guess I'm one of the bright ones then.
Um... why have you posted that? Read what you've posted - it's
nonsensical. You've edited the original but it just doesn't make sense.
If I didn't know who you were I'd be none the wiser about whether you'd
bought HL2 or not. If you want to respond to the points Kevin makes,
then do so on the original thread where your comments are in context.

Frankly I'm losing track of the arguments against Steam because they're
getting buried under abusive hatemail and trolling. I am not going to
boycott Valve because it is "evil" or "ugly" and I doubt Valve are
going to take too much notice of that, let alone the floating voter
wondering whether or not to buy HL2.

The only valid arguments seem to be:

1) "It tries to go online to authenticate at all opportunities, which
makes the single-player game dependent on an internet connection." Some
people don't mind this, others see it as an infringment of some civil
liberty. Personally I think it's excessive and unnecessary, but my
internet connection isn't always on so it doesn't affect me. Call me a
NIMBY if you will.

2) "You have to create a Steam account online when you first install
the game." This makes it pointless duplicating the discs and CD-Keys,
but also makes it harder to sell the game afterwards. The arguments are
1) it's inconvenient, 2) I can't pirate the game, 3) I can't easily
sell the game later. I think only one of those holds water.

3) "The hardware requirements are too high for me - I haven't got
broadband to download the patches." You could just as easily be sat
there bemoaning your on-board video. Yes, HL2's got a higher level of
hardware requirement than Pong, but that will always happen with big
game releases. OK, so the specific gripe is that you need an internet
connection and preferably a fast one to install and patch the
single-player game, and why should you need internet for a
single-player game? I think the only answer is that the internet is
fast becoming an everyday thing, like a phone line or electricy before
that. Valve are possibly the first games company to build it into their
product, but they won't be the last. Are Valve taking away your liberty
by forcing you to use the internet when installing your game? Or has
the wave of progress jush washed up your beach and wetted your feet? I
think the latter.

To be honest, I think a lot of the problem is not what Valve has done
with Steam, but how they communicated it. Many people's expectations of
a single-player game did not include the above points. Had there been
more explanation (eg. an installation guide in the box, better wording
about the internet requirement on the box, magazine articles explaining
Steam) then we would have been "briefed" and I suspect many of the
nay-sayers would have been less vociferous.

So, Riku, difool et al, there you go. I'm doing your work for you by
trying to lay out the anti-Steam arguments in a coherent manner.
Hopefully people will be able to identify with the issues and say "Well
I don't mind that, but I can see why others might - perhaps Valve
should do something about that in a patch so that these disenfranchised
people can also play the game". Keep the histrionics to a minimum (that
goes for the "Steam-Fanbois" as well - you know who you are)and let's
discuss specifically what's wrong with Steam.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 6:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107278053.559567.4640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Frankly I'm losing track of the arguments against Steam because they're
> getting buried under abusive hatemail and trolling. I am not going to
> boycott Valve because it is "evil" or "ugly" and I doubt Valve are
> going to take too much notice of that, let alone the floating voter
> wondering whether or not to buy HL2.

You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and are
forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player game.
Isn't that enough?
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:04:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> I really debated about posting, but I guess I really am a big
> "hateboi" of Steam...>

Tell us something we didn't know ...
The jig is up. HL-2/Steam is OLD news, why keep on about it ? You must have
another agenda.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:27:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:04:38 -0000, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com>
wrote:

>> I really debated about posting, but I guess I really am a big
>> "hateboi" of Steam...>
>
>Tell us something we didn't know ...
>The jig is up. HL-2/Steam is OLD news, why keep on about it ? You must have
>another agenda.

Ok, for the less bright ones, this was a simple jab at the similar
thread posted a bit earlier by Kevin Steel, which was pro-Steam. Look
for a thread called "God, I love it (s-t-e-a-m)". I think normal
people could see the similarities.

I wonder why you didn't ask the same question from him? Because his
thread was pro-Steam, right?
February 1, 2005 7:32:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"riku" wrote
>
> I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
> don't want to troll,

Actually you do. That's why your subject says "s-t-e-a-m", so the poor sods
who've blocked 'steam' as a subject will still see it.

Well done for outwitting us all.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:38:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:32:48 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
>> don't want to troll,
>
>Actually you do. That's why your subject says "s-t-e-a-m", so the poor sods
>who've blocked 'steam' as a subject will still see it.
>
>Well done for outwitting us all.

Read my reply to redTed. Ask Kevin Steel why he said "s-t-e-a-m" in
his subject line, I just copy&pasted it from there.

Apparently everything needs to be s-p-e-l-l-e-d out for some of you?
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:38:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku thought about it a bit, then said...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:32:48 GMT, "Vince"
> <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
> >> don't want to troll,
> >
> >Actually you do. That's why your subject says "s-t-e-a-m", so the poor sods
> >who've blocked 'steam' as a subject will still see it.
> >
> >Well done for outwitting us all.
>
> Read my reply to redTed. Ask Kevin Steel why he said "s-t-e-a-m" in
> his subject line, I just copy&pasted it from there.

Sorry about that - I was trying to simulate a 'whisper' of "that which
shall not be spoken of in this forum for fear of bringing down an angry
swarm of flames."

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:40:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:27:13 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>thread posted a bit earlier by Kevin Steel, which was pro-Steam. Look

My apologies, it was SteelE.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:40:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku thought about it a bit, then said...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:27:13 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>
> >thread posted a bit earlier by Kevin Steel, which was pro-Steam. Look
>
> My apologies, it was SteelE.

Remington and I thank you. ;-)

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
February 2, 2005 3:00:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:39:02 -0600, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
wrote:

>You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and are
>forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player game.
>Isn't that enough?

Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?

What's the difference between that and online checks in Steam? A lot
of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of
offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.
--
Noman
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:06:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Kroagnon wrote:
>
> You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you
and are
> forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single
player game.
> Isn't that enough?

I'm also forced to install Counterstrike, which I don't play. What's
your point?

Steam is the system for downloading patches and additional content - no
more searching for potentially dangerous files anywhere on the
internet.
Steam is the system for registering my CD-Key so it can't be pirated or
duplicated.

Are you saying you don't want those features at all?
Or that you appreciate what they do, but don't like the way they're
implemented (especially having to go online everytime you play
single-player)?
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 2:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005, noman wrote:

> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?

worthless argument!
consoles do it all the time!
pc games have been doing it for at least 8 years!
with needing cd in drive to play you are not DEPENDENT on anything else
besides yourself!
with needing cd in drive you don't need internet access, you don't need
online activation, you don't need steam intrusive spy monitor programs

> mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of
> offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
> if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.

worthless argument!
hardware malfunction happens all the time!
hardware malfunction makes you stop using your computer!
hardware malfunction will make you stop playing any game including hl2!

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

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 2:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

i really know what you are doing
and its a disgusting low blow
you want to send NOISE to anything related to steam
you want to condition what we DISCUSS in the group
please sir let me remind you... YOU DON'T OWN THIS GROUP!
its not you who will set what we can and cannot discuss in this group!
do you understand?
make all the NOISE you can, cause we know you don't give a damn about
this group or about newsgroups or about the usenet, cause for you what
is important is trying to force us all to discuss what you want

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

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 2:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

difool wrote:
> i really know what you are doing
> and its a disgusting low blow
> you want to send NOISE to anything related to steam
> you want to condition what we DISCUSS in the group
> please sir let me remind you... YOU DON'T OWN THIS GROUP!
> its not you who will set what we can and cannot discuss in this group!
> do you understand?
> make all the NOISE you can, cause we know you don't give a damn about
> this group or about newsgroups or about the usenet, cause for you what
> is important is trying to force us all to discuss what you want


Projection:
1.. Psychology.
2.. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to
others: "Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious
projectionof clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought
with them into the field" (Alex Shoumatoff).
3.. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to
someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or
guilt.

What you just accused Vader of doing is what you have been doing for two
months.



begin 666 mdash.gif
M1TE&.#EA$0`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````1`!8```(6A(^IR^T/
2HYRTVBN#WKQK#(;B2%8$"@`[
`
end
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 2:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, "Kroagnon" wrote:

> You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and are
> forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player game.

exactly!
the guy wrote a lot, most of it worthless and you with a two line sentence
told it all!
very cool!

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

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:04:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:28 GMT, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman)
wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:39:02 -0600, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and are
>>forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player game.
>>Isn't that enough?
>
>Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
>
>What's the difference between that and online checks in Steam?

The fact that online validation depends on the existence and
availability of the Steam system and servers, CD checks don't. There
is no sudden 14 hour downtime with CD checks, for example.

I have lots of old PC games in my collection where the
development/publishing company doesn't exist anymore, yet I can still
play them. Even without cracks that I may or may not be able to find
online, and which may or may not include trojans and viruses.

>A lot
>of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
>mode but that's not the case.

Wrong. The offline mode does not remove the need for initial online
validation of the game when you install it or run it for the first
time after the installation. You know, I don't have all my old PC
games installed on my PC at the same time. Sometimes I remove some of
them, sometimes I re-install some of them, sometimes I lose them all
from the hard drive if I update the machine, etc.


See, Chadwick? This is exactly what I meant with the type of people
who claim that the points against Steam are not valid. See how futile
it is to try discuss with such people about the pros and cons of
Steam? They already have made up in their little minds that Steam is
perfect, and has absolutely no drawbacks that need to be fixed or
altered.
February 2, 2005 5:18:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <1107278053.559567.4640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The only valid arguments seem to be:

As judged by you. There are many arguments for and against Steam, the
validity of which will be determined by each individual.


>2) "You have to create a Steam account online when you first install
>the game." This makes it pointless duplicating the discs and CD-Keys,
>but also makes it harder to sell the game afterwards. The arguments are
>1) it's inconvenient, 2) I can't pirate the game, 3) I can't easily
>sell the game later. I think only one of those holds water.

4) It forces you to sacrifice your privacy/anonymity to play, both in the
account that you setup and the play statistics that it reports back to Valve.

No one, BTW, has argued that they "can't pirate the game." Posing that
as one of the arguments against Steam is ridiculous and inflammatory.


>3) "The hardware requirements are too high for me - I haven't got
>broadband to download the patches." You could just as easily be sat

It's also an UNNECESSARY requirement. If Steam required you to be of a
specific nationality (no more UK customers), you'd be okay with that
"requirement" too? Many people live in areas where broadband is simply
unavailable or grossly unaffordable, and there is no good gameplay reason that
an internet connection must be a requirement for the single-player game.


>Had there been
>more explanation (eg. an installation guide in the box, better wording
>about the internet requirement on the box, magazine articles explaining
>Steam) then we would have been "briefed" and I suspect many of the
>nay-sayers would have been less vociferous.

Probably because they wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. Then
again, seen a lot of people coming to the argument later, as realization
dawns. So it might've started later, but there'd probably still be enough
vociferousness as makes no difference.


>So, Riku, difool et al, there you go. I'm doing your work for you by
>trying to lay out the anti-Steam arguments in a coherent manner.

Yeah, work... incomplete and with your own dismissive bias mixed in. There
has been plenty of cogent discussion of the faults of Steam. It goes largely
ignored, buried under insults, incoherent rants, and other usenet noise.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:21:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4200158a.709726662@news.individual.net...

> >You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and
are
> >forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player
game.
> >Isn't that enough?
>
> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?

Nope, they don't force me to do so as I apply no-CD patches to all of them.
I certainly don't approve of it but they're easily patched without affecting
multiplayer so I don't have that big of an issue with it. Steam is something
different altogether.

> What's the difference between that and online checks in Steam? A lot
> of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
> mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of
> offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
> if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.

There is no need for an online check for a offline single player game.
That's the whole point. Again, this is about choice - what if I prefer to
have a CD check than asking Valve if I can play? As many have stated,
"offline" mode is not as offline as it should be, it *still* calls home.

I don't want to use Steam, period. I don't care about its advantages as its
drawbacks outweigh them. I want to choose whether or not to use Steam.
What's the problem with that?
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:32:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107342397.124743.310980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you
> and are
> > forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single
> player game.
> > Isn't that enough?
>
> I'm also forced to install Counterstrike, which I don't play. What's
> your point?

Ahh, that's not Steam related though, it's a bug in the installer.

> Steam is the system for downloading patches and additional content - no
> more searching for potentially dangerous files anywhere on the
> internet.

You are also forced to install the latest update if auto-update is enabled
also. So if the latest patch is incompatible with your video driver or
whatever, you can't roll it back.

> Steam is the system for registering my CD-Key so it can't be pirated or
> duplicated.

This is both an advantage (can't get your CD key swiped) and disadvantage
(can't sell the game easily if at all).

> Are you saying you don't want those features at all?

I have no use for them.

> Or that you appreciate what they do, but don't like the way they're
> implemented (especially having to go online everytime you play
> single-player)?

Indeed. I'd like to choose whether or not to participate in Steam, either
single player or multiplayer. I have zero use for it in single player and
while it may be convienent for multiplayer, I choose not to use it there
also.
February 2, 2005 5:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <4200158a.709726662@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?

If such CD checks were as intrusive and inconvenient as Steam, yes. So far
for me, they haven't been. Then again, I wouldn't prevent you from using
Steam if that's your preference... so why would you deny me the traditional,
well-established distribution, validation, and patching methods that I would
prefer????


>What's the difference between that and online checks in Steam? A lot

Steam is more intrusive. Steam is less convenient (for many). Steam is
inherently less reliable.


>of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
>mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of

There is no offline mode for installation and patching.


>offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
>if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.

What's more likely to fail, your CD drive or your internet connection? What's
more likely to fail, your CD or Valve's servers? If you go online and it
fails, does off-line mode also still work, guaranteed? (Please refer yourself
to recent threads here, and reportedly on Valve's forums, indicating that it
doesn't.)
February 2, 2005 6:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <1107342397.124743.310980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm also forced to install Counterstrike, which I don't play. What's
>your point?

What's yours?


>Steam is the system for downloading patches and additional content - no
>more searching for potentially dangerous files anywhere on the
>internet.
>Steam is the system for registering my CD-Key so it can't be pirated or
>duplicated.
>
>Are you saying you don't want those features at all?

From Steam? Not really, no. I can download my patches and additional content
from Valve's web site or a 3rd-party site just as easily or even more easily.
I don't particularly care about protecting my CD-key because I don't play
online (MP). If I did, then I'd probably be more accepting of Steam... but
that (MP) is a different animal entirely and always has been.


>Or that you appreciate what they do, but don't like the way they're
>implemented (especially having to go online everytime you play
>single-player)?

If it were merely an option, I'd appreciate Steam just fine...
and still wouldn't use it. In fact, I own many games that have built-in
online updating as an option.
February 2, 2005 7:47:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:57:12 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>In article <4200158a.709726662@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>
>>Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>>drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
>
>If such CD checks were as intrusive and inconvenient as Steam, yes. So far
>for me, they haven't been.

To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
the drive and then start the game. Some games in particular do not
like my CD drive and it takes up to 30 seconds for the initial checks.

With HL2, I just click its desktop icon and the game starts right away
whether I am online or offline.

>>of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
>>mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of
>
>There is no offline mode for installation and patching.
>
>>offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
>>if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.
>
>What's more likely to fail, your CD drive or your internet connection? What's
>more likely to fail, your CD or Valve's servers?

Since we are talking about a failure event, let's say you bought a
game on CD and it doesn't install because it's incompatible with the
drive. How 'd you get out of this situation (without returning the
game)? Wait, till the drive auto-repairs itself? At least with HL2, if
you can't authenticate for the initial install because of Valve's
server problems, you can always wait.

Besides, the only time when you have to rely on Valve servers to be up
is during installation. That's the time, you can get into situation of
not able to play a game which you paid for, because there's offline to
fallback on during regular play. Since this time window is
insignificant compared to the entire time for which you'll play the
game, the probability of you running into problems is also fairly
negligible.

On the other hand, the CD-check doesn't happen with just the game
install. Every gaming session for that game requires it.

In one case, you are troubled about what would happen at times of
failure (when the critical time is only the installation time). In the
other case, no matter what happens, you have to go through the
explicit checks every time you play the game.

By the way, you can patch the game in offline mode. It's just that
most people would rather connect and manually update their game
through Valve servers because it's more convenient even on dial-up.
--
Noman
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, noman wrote:

> To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
> action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in

Ever heard of nocd cracks or do you just ignore them to praise Steam?

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
February 2, 2005 9:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"difool" wrote
> noman wrote:

>> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?

> worthless argument!
> consoles do it all the time!
> pc games have been doing it for at least 8 years!

Irrelevant. That doesn't make it right.

Or will you accept Steam after a certain time has elapsed?

>> In fact, there is no equivalent of
>> offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
>> if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.

> worthless argument!
> hardware malfunction happens all the time!
> hardware malfunction makes you stop using your computer!
> hardware malfunction will make you stop playing any game including hl2!

Hypocritical. Valve's server malfunctioned and that's what you are currently
whining about.
February 2, 2005 9:04:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"riku" wrote

> Just because you lose objectivity does not mean they are "all
> identical". I had not even written about Steam for quite awhile, but
> when you read walter mit... errr, "difools" messages, I guess your
> brains become muddled.

Rubbish.

Like Difool, *all* your posts are about Steam.
February 2, 2005 9:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"redTed" wrote

> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other products
> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
> require online validation.
> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?

Sorry Ted but that argument's going nowhere.

Most of the Steam-haters don't appear to run a proper Firewall so they don't
realize that loads of software (including games) 'phone home' when you start
them up.
February 2, 2005 10:16:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <4200fcc8.768923743@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:57:12 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
>action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
>the drive and then start the game. Some games in particular do not
>like my CD drive and it takes up to 30 seconds for the initial checks.

Wow... 30 WHOLE seconds??? Yeah, I can see where inserting a CD into a drive
is a lot more inconveniencing than lugging a computer over to a friend's house
any time one needs to re-validate or patch a game. But, hey, I wouldn't have
you inconvenienced even a little bit... just have Steam be an option (like it
should've been), instead of an unnecessary requirement and everyone can be
happy!


>With HL2, I just click its desktop icon and the game starts right away
>whether I am online or offline.

Unless something goes wrong... of which it is far more prone to do from what
I've seen in postings by Steam users.


>>What's more likely to fail, your CD drive or your internet connection? What's
>>more likely to fail, your CD or Valve's servers?
>
>Since we are talking about a failure event, let's say you bought a
>game on CD and it doesn't install because it's incompatible with the
>drive. How 'd you get out of this situation (without returning the
>game)? Wait, till the drive auto-repairs itself? At least with HL2, if
>you can't authenticate for the initial install because of Valve's
>server problems, you can always wait.

And wait... and wait... and maybe it gets fixed and maybe not, since you have
zero control over getting it fixed. I can always replace the oddball CD
drive, cheaply and simply, with one that's more compatible.

Even so, if it were a widespread problem, you'd expect that there would be
complaints about it and I'd certainly not criticize or insult those
complaining. In fact, I might even avoid such a publisher myself on the
grounds that no copy protection scheme should unduly inconvenience or prevent
customers from playing their purchased game.


>Besides, the only time when you have to rely on Valve servers to be up
>is during installation. That's the time, you can get into situation of

Then why have there been so many complaints about being locked out of playing
(even offline) whenever the Steam servers are down?


>In one case, you are troubled about what would happen at times of
>failure (when the critical time is only the installation time). In the
>other case, no matter what happens, you have to go through the
>explicit checks every time you play the game.

Steam doesn't come without its problems... and it's price, one that many are
unwilling to pay. Personally, CD validation has always been trouble free...
and while I realize that's not so for all, the arguments against Steam are
fueled by Steam being a requirement, not a choice. That Steam serves to
validate the software is no answer to why it is a requirement precisely
because CD checks are equally (if not more) effective at stopping casual
piracy.


>By the way, you can patch the game in offline mode. It's just that
>most people would rather connect and manually update their game
>through Valve servers because it's more convenient even on dial-up.

Really? How?
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:23:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly difool <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> Spake Unto All:

>i really know what you are doing
>and its a disgusting low blow
>you want to send NOISE to anything related to steam
>you want to condition what we DISCUSS in the group
>please sir let me remind you... YOU DON'T OWN THIS GROUP!

Talking to yourself again?

>make all the NOISE you can, cause we know you don't give a damn about
>this group or about newsgroups or about the usenet, cause for you what
>is important is trying to force us all to discuss what you want

I'll take that as a yes.
February 2, 2005 10:44:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:54:29 +0100, Werner Spahl
<spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, noman wrote:
>
>> To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
>> action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
>
>Ever heard of nocd cracks or do you just ignore them to praise Steam?

You can use Steam hacks to bypass Steam authentication as well. If we
are talking about hacks, I'd compare noCD hacks to Steam hacks.

The original poster to whom I replied went on about how Valve games
should be boycotted because they are forcing you to run games in
certain way (a single player game requiring online connection). I
replied that if it's a matter of principle, the same distaste against
"violation of personal rights" should exist with CD-checks as well,
since the game publishers force you to put the CD in drive, even when
the game is fully installed on hard-disk.

The next person replied that Steam is more intrusive and inconvenient
than CD-checks. To that, I replied what you quoted.

In any case, no-cd cracks (just like Steam hacks) have to be updated
when a game patch is released. Steam, to me, is almost an official
no-cd patch which I can always keep updated if I want.
--
Noman
February 2, 2005 10:59:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <qM8Md.45610$B5.26531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"redTed" wrote
>
>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other products
>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>> require online validation.
>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?

I'd bet I don't... at least none that do so without my initiating or allowing
the connection on my terms. But if I do, then I'd certainly be pissed about
it... NOT accepting of it.


>Sorry Ted but that argument's going nowhere.

I tend to agree, but for different reasons.


>Most of the Steam-haters don't appear to run a proper Firewall so they don't
>realize that loads of software (including games) 'phone home' when you start
>them up.

I use Zone Alarm. Is that a proper firewall??
February 2, 2005 11:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <4201246a.779069672@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>The next person replied that Steam is more intrusive and inconvenient
>than CD-checks. To that, I replied what you quoted.

Steam is more intrusive (CD checks are anonymous, Steam accounts are not) and,
for many, less convenient... but then that is a matter of opinion.
February 2, 2005 11:18:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:16:24 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>In article <4200fcc8.768923743@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:57:12 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:
>
>>To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
>>action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
>>the drive and then start the game. Some games in particular do not
>>like my CD drive and it takes up to 30 seconds for the initial checks.
>
>Wow... 30 WHOLE seconds??? Yeah, I can see where inserting a CD into a drive
>is a lot more inconveniencing than lugging a computer over to a friend's house
>any time one needs to re-validate or patch a game.

Again, you are comparing something that'll *always* happen (a
CD-check) to something that probably a handful of HL2 buyers would
have to do.

A game can't sell 1.7 million retail copies, if even 0.01 % of its
buyers had to take their PC somewhere else to install the game.

>>Besides, the only time when you have to rely on Valve servers to be up
>>is during installation. That's the time, you can get into situation of
>
>Then why have there been so many complaints about being locked out of playing
>(even offline) whenever the Steam servers are down?

Most complaints have been about not able to 'install/validate the
game' and even these were there during the first week of release.

The offline mode has been working fine since then. Don't forget that
you have to take into account the two-month 1,700,000 retail sales
number of HL2 when you consider the "many" complaints.

This newsgroup at least is not seeing a lot of offline mode problem
posts. There's only one person I recall who couldn't manage to run the
game in offline mode.
--
Noman
February 3, 2005 12:52:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <42012ed7.781739271@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>Again, you are comparing something that'll *always* happen (a
>CD-check) to something that probably a handful of HL2 buyers would
>have to do.

Remember, this was a Valve-suggested course of action, right off their
website... one that I doubt they'd make, on the grounds of its sheer
ridiculousness, if there weren't more than a "probable handful" of people to
which it applied. Even so, you're nitpicking the 5 or so (I think 30 is way
overstated) seconds it takes the drive to check your CD? As I said... wow.


>A game can't sell 1.7 million retail copies, if even 0.01 % of its
>buyers had to take their PC somewhere else to install the game.

If people didn't understand/recognize the requirement until after they'd made
their purchase, it might... the proof will be in how well the next game sells.


>>Then why have there been so many complaints about being locked out of playing
>>(even offline) whenever the Steam servers are down?
>
>Most complaints have been about not able to 'install/validate the
>game' and even these were there during the first week of release.

Yes, but I wasn't referring to those. I was referring to more recent posts.


>The offline mode has been working fine since then. Don't forget that
>you have to take into account the two-month 1,700,000 retail sales
>number of HL2 when you consider the "many" complaints.

So if there are only a few thousand complaints, they don't matter? Should you
ever find yourself amongst that handful, will they matter then?


>This newsgroup at least is not seeing a lot of offline mode problem
>posts. There's only one person I recall who couldn't manage to run the
>game in offline mode.

I believe that I've read several... and at least one indicated that there were
a lot more in Valve's forums, where you'd expect most complaints of this sort
to appear. But whatever... they must be lying trolls, clueless "noobs," or
they don't matter (tough noogies), right?
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:53:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other
>>> products
>>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>>> require online validation.
>>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?
>

You're agreeing to something intruding on your machine the second you read
this message or click the "Run/Save" button to start a download.. You are
giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the 'net.
Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean it's
not happening.
And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone Alarmed"
(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.
Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.
February 3, 2005 1:04:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <36d0feF4tlrc1U1@individual.net>, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com> wrote:
>>>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other
>>>> products
>>>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>>>> require online validation.
>>>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?

>You're agreeing to something intruding on your machine the second you read
>this message or click the "Run/Save" button to start a download.. You are

Yes... and???

If I agree to one, must I therefore agree to all? I don't think so.


>giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the 'net.
>Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean it's
>not happening.

Doesn't mean it is either. Prove it otherwise.


>And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone Alarmed"
>(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.

Accesses the internet without my permission? Again, prove it.


>Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.

Neither will insults and pugnaciousness.
February 3, 2005 1:14:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:52:22 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>In article <42012ed7.781739271@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>
>>A game can't sell 1.7 million retail copies, if even 0.01 % of its
>>buyers had to take their PC somewhere else to install the game.
>
>If people didn't understand/recognize the requirement until after they'd made
>their purchase, it might... the proof will be in how well the next game sells.

The proof is in the continued sale of HL2. Word of mouth travels fast
and if Valve are still big issues in the initial installation of HL2,
then the game will not stay on top 10 list. I believe it'll be there
in some shape and form for next 2-3 years.

>>The offline mode has been working fine since then. Don't forget that
>>you have to take into account the two-month 1,700,000 retail sales
>>number of HL2 when you consider the "many" complaints.
>
>So if there are only a few thousand complaints, they don't matter? Should you
>ever find yourself amongst that handful, will they matter then?

You can ask the same question to all those who can't play new releases
because of incompatibility of the CD-check scheme.

>>This newsgroup at least is not seeing a lot of offline mode problem
>>posts. There's only one person I recall who couldn't manage to run the
>>game in offline mode.
>
>I believe that I've read several... and at least one indicated that there were
>a lot more in Valve's forums, where you'd expect most complaints of this sort
>to appear. But whatever... they must be lying trolls, clueless "noobs," or
>they don't matter (tough noogies), right?

Where are these several recent posts in this newsgroup which bemoan
about offline mode? Can you give Google links? Thanks
--
Noman
February 3, 2005 1:29:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:21:39 -0600, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
wrote:

>"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4200158a.709726662@news.individual.net...
>
>> >You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and
>are
>> >forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player
>game.
>> >Isn't that enough?
>>
>> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
>
>Nope, they don't force me to do so as I apply no-CD patches to all of them.

They *are* taking the choice away from you, but you find ways to avoid
it. So in a way, your argument is not that Steam is forcing you to do
a thing certain way, rather than what they are doing is not easily
hackable.

That's a different issue. In any case, Steam hacks do exist.

>I certainly don't approve of it but they're easily patched without affecting
>multiplayer so I don't have that big of an issue with it. Steam is something
>different altogether.

With most games, you can't play multiplayer with noCD hacks. It's
certainly the way with Diablo2, Civ3 etc.

>> What's the difference between that and online checks in Steam? A lot
>> of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
>> mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of
>> offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
>> if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.
>
>There is no need for an online check for a offline single player game.
>That's the whole point. Again, this is about choice - what if I prefer to
>have a CD check than asking Valve if I can play?

With CD checks, you are asking the publishers whether you can play the
game. You prefer CD checks over online check. I don't.

> As many have stated,
>"offline" mode is not as offline as it should be, it *still* calls home.

Offline mode works when you are offline. It can't talk to Valve server
because you are not online. I think, that should be obvious to
everyone.

>I don't want to use Steam, period. I don't care about its advantages as its
>drawbacks outweigh them. I want to choose whether or not to use Steam.
>What's the problem with that?

No problem. I commented on your call for boycotting Valve games, since
the reasoning you used applies equally well to CD-checks as well.
--
Noman
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:51:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Yes... and???
>
> If I agree to one, must I therefore agree to all? I don't think so.

Of course not..but again, what's the difference ?

>
>>giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the
>>'net.
>>Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean
>>it's
>>not happening.
>
> Doesn't mean it is either. Prove it otherwise.
>
>
>>And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone
>>Alarmed"
>>(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.

http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/securityAlert/8.h... Off their own
site.
http://computercops.biz/article2184.html
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5HP0C0K35S.html
plus many more.
See, you're never completely secure no matter what you may think.

> Accesses the internet without my permission? Again, prove it.

Tricky when I cannot see what's on your HD..I'm not Steam you know !
But I'm still 99.9% sure you do not know what certain apps are doing while
you are online.

>>Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.
>
> Neither will insults and pugnaciousness.

Well, explain yourself then. What terrible deeds are Valve doing to your PC
when Steam is running ?
Just answer that. And please don't say "it's the humiliation of begging
master valve to let me play HL-2", or words to that effect :) 
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qM8Md.45610$B5.26531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "redTed" wrote
>
>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other products
>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>> require online validation.
>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?
>
> Sorry Ted but that argument's going nowhere.
>
> Most of the Steam-haters don't appear to run a proper Firewall

Your evidence backing this up is?
February 3, 2005 2:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <36d3s2F4vq4r3U1@individual.net>, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com> wrote:
>> Yes... and???
>>
>> If I agree to one, must I therefore agree to all? I don't think so.
>
>Of course not..but again, what's the difference ?

The difference could be anonymity, for one. It could be just the principle of
being forced to it versus it being only an option.


>>>giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the
>>>'net.
>>>Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean
>>>it's
>>>not happening.
>>
>> Doesn't mean it is either. Prove it otherwise.
>>
>>
>>>And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone
>>>Alarmed"
>>>(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.
>
>http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/securityAlert/8.h... Off their own
>site.

Doesn't apply to me.


>http://computercops.biz/article2184.html

Doesn't apply to me... and quite old.


>http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5HP0C0K35S.html

Would apply if I had run the trojan that opens the door. Here's where that
caution that you called "rabid paranoia" comes in....


>plus many more.
>See, you're never completely secure no matter what you may think.

So, that means that I should just not care and let any and all have their way
with my computer??? And you're laughing at me?!


>> Accesses the internet without my permission? Again, prove it.
>
>Tricky when I cannot see what's on your HD..I'm not Steam you know !
>But I'm still 99.9% sure you do not know what certain apps are doing while
>you are online.

Based on the evidence that there are a lot of bad people putting out bad
and/or illegal programs intent on evading my firewall's security in an attempt
to do unscrupulous things. But then I'm "rabidly paranoid" if I would seek to
avoid this?


>>>Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.
>>
>> Neither will insults and pugnaciousness.
>
>Well, explain yourself then. What terrible deeds are Valve doing to your PC
>when Steam is running ?

They're not, obviously, since I'm not running Steam. What Steam does do is
send statistics about your gameplay back "home" (as stated in their own
privacy disclosure). Beyond that, who can truly say for sure? You
certainly can't... unless you're going to dismiss the above alerts that you
just threw at me. Perhaps you naively trust that Valve will always protect
your privacy (and itself) from the unscrupulous... I tend to side with
common-sense caution and avoid making it any easier for them as much as is
reasonably possible.


>And please don't say "it's the humiliation of begging
>master valve to let me play HL-2", or words to that effect :) 

When have I ever? Perhaps because I jumped in here, you're getting confused.
Please keep track of who you're replying to.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:33:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:52:33 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>
>I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
>don't want to troll, but I honestly am not loving this whole "steam"
>thing. So much so that I felt compelled to add my voice to the
>"non-pro-steam" crowd, no matter how little it changes things on this
>newsgroup.
>

Hey. You succeeded. Congratulations.

After 47 replies (so far), Wally has not replied.

His message header scanner seems to have been fooled by your
spelling of s-t-e-a-m. :-) :-)

John Lewis
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:33:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:52:33 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>

<snip>

>
>
> Hey. You succeeded. Congratulations.
>
> After 47 replies (so far), Wally has not replied.
>
> His message header scanner seems to have been fooled by your
> spelling of s-t-e-a-m. :-) :-)
>
> John Lewis


haha

--
best regards, mat
np: [winamp not running]

www.pdxshows.net
February 3, 2005 2:40:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <42014f9a.790126141@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>>So if there are only a few thousand complaints, they don't matter? Should you
>>ever find yourself amongst that handful, will they matter then?
>
>You can ask the same question to all those who can't play new releases
>because of incompatibility of the CD-check scheme.

I don't have to, since I'd sympathize with them. ;-)


>Where are these several recent posts in this newsgroup which bemoan
>about offline mode? Can you give Google links? Thanks

Googling them up directly would be rather difficult... but only because
there's so many possibilities... on wording and in hits.

Here's my one and only attempt... you can weed through it if you're
truly interested and not just trying to wear me and the point ragged:

http://groups-beta.google.
com/groups?q=offline+valve+forum+steam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLC,
GGLC:1969-53,GGLC:en&sa=N&tab=wg
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:09:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"difool" <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:hue101lm2t2oc6u0rk27a0ouanhgamqemj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005, noman wrote:
>
> > Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
> > drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
>
> worthless argument!
> consoles do it all the time!
> pc games have been doing it for at least 8 years!

So the fact that it's being going on for 8 years makes it valid?
Interesting statement. I'm trying to think how I can use this.
"But honey, I've been seeing that other woman for 8 years now. It's ok."
"Listen officer, I've been speeding and drinking while driving for 10 years
now. It's ok."

> with needing cd in drive to play you are not DEPENDENT on anything else
> besides yourself!

But aren't you dependant upon the CD & the drive?
Which also makes you dependant upon the publishers and the stores.

<snip>

Post made on a WinXP-free computer
I said "NO" to MS and its online registration.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:32:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
news:ctqngi$d4n$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
<snip>
> Many people live in areas where broadband is simply
> unavailable or grossly unaffordable, and there is no good gameplay reason
that
> an internet connection must be a requirement for the single-player game.
>

At least not from the gamer aspect. The developer's perspective is another
story.

And when using the cost factor, there's a lot of pc gamers out there that
can't afford to upgrade their current system to meet Doom3, FarCry,
NewGame-ABC hardware requirements.

So we have developers that say all you gamers that don't have CPU X, video
card Y, WinXPZ, and can't afford to upgrade, are out of luck. And we have
another developer that has produced two of the highest rated/praised games
every released for the pc tell gamers that if you don't have an hardware
device X, then you're pretty much out of luck.

Oh, and we have the world's biggest OS developer tell users that you must
register their new OS either online or by phone.

Can't wait to see what the year 2006 brings us. :( 
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:13:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4201246a.779069672@news.individual.net...

> You can use Steam hacks to bypass Steam authentication as well. If we
> are talking about hacks, I'd compare noCD hacks to Steam hacks.
>
> The original poster to whom I replied went on about how Valve games
> should be boycotted because they are forcing you to run games in
> certain way (a single player game requiring online connection). I
> replied that if it's a matter of principle, the same distaste against
> "violation of personal rights" should exist with CD-checks as well,
> since the game publishers force you to put the CD in drive, even when
> the game is fully installed on hard-disk.
>
> The next person replied that Steam is more intrusive and inconvenient
> than CD-checks. To that, I replied what you quoted.
>
> In any case, no-cd cracks (just like Steam hacks) have to be updated
> when a game patch is released. Steam, to me, is almost an official
> no-cd patch which I can always keep updated if I want.

That should be your choice whether or not you want to use Steam for what you
consider a benefit just as it needs to be our choice not to use it. I won't
submit personal info to Valve or any other game company to play a game
online or offline.

Why is it that you can't support choice?
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:420150af.790402648@news.individual.net...
> >> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
> >> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
> >Nope, they don't force me to do so as I apply no-CD patches to all of
them.
> They *are* taking the choice away from you, but you find ways to avoid
> it. So in a way, your argument is not that Steam is forcing you to do
> a thing certain way, rather than what they are doing is not easily
> hackable.
>
> That's a different issue. In any case, Steam hacks do exist.

I didn't say they didn't exist, the Steam emulator is pretty flawless
actually.

> >I certainly don't approve of it but they're easily patched without
affecting
> >multiplayer so I don't have that big of an issue with it. Steam is
something
> >different altogether.
>
> With most games, you can't play multiplayer with noCD hacks. It's
> certainly the way with Diablo2, Civ3 etc.

In all my years of multiplayer (almost 10) I have *never* had *any* game not
play multiplayer because of a no-CD patched EXE. And I patch every game I
play that wants the CD, single or multi.

With Steam I'd have to play on a cracked server... and while I have the
ability to host a cracked server, I don't want to host this game. So I
choose not the buy the game.

> >There is no need for an online check for a offline single player game.
> >That's the whole point. Again, this is about choice - what if I prefer to
> >have a CD check than asking Valve if I can play?
>
> With CD checks, you are asking the publishers whether you can play the
> game. You prefer CD checks over online check. I don't.

You just described *Steam*, not games with CD checks. How is it that you
need to "ask the publisher" to play a game with a CD check? You have to ask
Valve to play HL2, however.

> > As many have stated,
> >"offline" mode is not as offline as it should be, it *still* calls home.
> Offline mode works when you are offline. It can't talk to Valve server
> because you are not online. I think, that should be obvious to
> everyone.

But if you are online it will still call home. There are several people who
have attested to this both here and the Steam forums. Folks even had their
single player game disabled for allegedly using cheats. Not very "offline"
is it?

> >I don't want to use Steam, period. I don't care about its advantages as
its
> >drawbacks outweigh them. I want to choose whether or not to use Steam.
> >What's the problem with that?
>
> No problem. I commented on your call for boycotting Valve games, since
> the reasoning you used applies equally well to CD-checks as well.

As others have stated, CD checks are no where *near* as intrusive as Steam
is any day of the week. When I buy a game other than HL2 I don't have to
submit personal info or authenticate just to play the single player game. I
just patch the EXE and go. And for multiplayer, it verifies that the CD key
is valid and you remain anonymous. While I don't approve of that either it
is nowhere NEAR as intrusive as Steam.

Sorry, but you're not making a very convincing argument as to why Steam is
better for single player games than CD checks.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:59:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:52:33 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
>>don't want to troll, but I honestly am not loving this whole "steam"
>>thing. So much so that I felt compelled to add my voice to the
>>"non-pro-steam" crowd, no matter how little it changes things on this
>>newsgroup.
>>
>
>
> Hey. You succeeded. Congratulations.
>
> After 47 replies (so far), Wally has not replied.
>
> His message header scanner seems to have been fooled by your
> spelling of s-t-e-a-m. :-) :-)
>
> John Lewis


Not really. But you "anti steam" guys have taken a hammering and you
know it. The points needed to display Steam in a fair light have been
made and most people are convinced. Heck, even you refer to me as "Mitty
and cronies" now.

In addition diFool is killfiled : enuff is enuff ... He is either a very
tenacious pisstaker or completely mad.
!