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

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[vinCe]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[noman]

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

 

[Guest]

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)?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[jeff]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[jeff]

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.)

 

[jeff]

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.

 

[noman]

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

 

[Guest]

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