Gaming and Steam

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

Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
lastest PCGamer magazine.

At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet connection
to play.

This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
66 answers Last reply
More about gaming steam
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:09:03 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote:

    >Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    >lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    >At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    >eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet connection
    >to play.

    And cars will fly too.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Well. Old Dog, I just happened to find out that the nursing home where my
    mother-in-law is currently in residence has Wi-Fi and DSL for the residents.
    You can look forward to your "golden years."

    --
    DaveW


    "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    > lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    > connection
    > to play.
    >
    > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    > lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    > connection
    > to play.
    >
    > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    >

    You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to post about this. It was small
    paragraph that could have huge implications in the near future. Seems like
    Steam really got a lot of game developers thinking.
    This is the line that really got me the most. Mark Rein from Epic Games said
    this "Unfortunately, gamers are going to have to give up some of their
    anonymity to play games" That to me is a very scary type of thinking. JLC
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    OldDog wrote:
    > Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    > lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet connection
    > to play.
    >
    > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    >


    Steam is NOT a hot topic anymore. It was a while back, but people dealt
    with it and got on with their lives.

    Difool's is probably the only person who still thinks its important
    enough to annoy us with.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:10:07 GMT, GFree <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au>
    wrote:


    >Steam is NOT a hot topic anymore. It was a while back, but people dealt
    >with it and got on with their lives.
    >
    >Difool's is probably the only person who still thinks its important
    >enough to annoy us with.

    Lots of people didn't buy the game because of Steam. Lots.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    The *real* Nos wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:10:07 GMT, GFree <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Steam is NOT a hot topic anymore. It was a while back, but people dealt
    >>with it and got on with their lives.
    >>
    >>Difool's is probably the only person who still thinks its important
    >>enough to annoy us with.
    >
    >
    > Lots of people didn't buy the game because of Steam. Lots.

    Their loss I guess.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Sounds good. But if I don't start to change my ways, my wife will probably
    just take me out to the woods one of these days and shoot me. ;)


    "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
    news:nemdnWesg4cCNrrfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
    > Well. Old Dog, I just happened to find out that the nursing home where my
    > mother-in-law is currently in residence has Wi-Fi and DSL for the
    residents.
    > You can look forward to your "golden years."
    >
    > --
    > DaveW
    >
    >
    >
    > "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    > news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > > Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    > > lastest PCGamer magazine.
    > >
    > > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree
    that
    > > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    > > connection
    > > to play.
    > >
    > > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:25:58 -0800, "JLC" <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:

    >You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to post about this. It was small
    >paragraph that could have huge implications in the near future. Seems like
    >Steam really got a lot of game developers thinking.
    >This is the line that really got me the most. Mark Rein from Epic Games said
    >this "Unfortunately, gamers are going to have to give up some of their
    >anonymity to play games" That to me is a very scary type of thinking. JLC

    When all emails (and increasing amounts of other traffic) in the
    developed world are scanned by the security forces, the concept of
    having a user ID to log on and play a game is pretty minor in
    comparison IMO.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:09:03 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote:

    >Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    >lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    >At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    >eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet connection
    >to play.
    >
    >This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)

    Yeah, and Bill Clinton also said in the 90s that every household in
    America will have a very high speed optic fiber Internet connection by
    the year 2000.

    It doesn't cost much to make such claims.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:25:58 -0800, "JLC" <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    >news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    >> Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    >> lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >>
    >> At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    >> eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    >> connection
    >> to play.
    >>
    >> This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    >>
    >
    >You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to post about this. It was small
    >paragraph that could have huge implications in the near future. Seems like
    >Steam really got a lot of game developers thinking.
    >This is the line that really got me the most. Mark Rein from Epic Games said
    >this "Unfortunately, gamers are going to have to give up some of their
    >anonymity to play games" That to me is a very scary type of thinking. JLC
    >
    >

    Really ? Single-player games ?

    He is either joking...or forgetting that many games are still
    single-player ( or local co-op on one machine ).... or being
    exceptionally arrogant. Kinda infectious with friends like
    G..weedledum and D..weedledee at Valve.

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

    On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:25:58 -0800, "JLC" <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:


    >You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to post about this. It was small
    >paragraph that could have huge implications in the near future. Seems like
    >Steam really got a lot of game developers thinking.
    >This is the line that really got me the most. Mark Rein from Epic Games said
    >this "Unfortunately, gamers are going to have to give up some of their
    >anonymity to play games" That to me is a very scary type of thinking. JLC
    >
    If they are going to start thinking that way then they better be
    prepared for the backlash. Thinking this way will just cost them more
    in sales and more losses due to higher pirating. This is just a bigger
    challenge for the crackers, which they love.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    OldDog wrote:
    > Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    > lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree
    that
    > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    connection
    > to play.
    >
    > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)

    It wouldn't surprise me.

    These days new houses are built with phone and plug sockets everywhere
    in order to accommodate the amount of electronic gear we tend to
    accumulate.

    Broadband is continuing to be taken up and is (in word at least)
    supported by The Powers That Be, so the number of connections is likely
    to continue increasing.

    The internet is becoming more and more a part of our daily lives.
    Newsgroups and forums such as this one, online banking, VOIP, online
    shopping, music downloads, online gaming, email, web browsing
    generally. I research and book hotels, flights, car hire over the web.
    In the UK we can get car tax and insurance online.

    Take all the above and try to imagine a decade into the future. Well,
    we'll all be wearing shiny suits and "food" will come in tablet form,
    but apart from that, it really wouldn't be a shock to find that
    broadband internet access is as common as mobile phones are now, and
    consequently it will be no big deal for us to connect to the web to
    update our console/PC, download and activate our games and play them.

    Sure, Steam is raising eyebrows now, but in 10 years I think things
    will be different. Maybe because of Steam?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, The *real* Nos wrote:

    > Lots of people didn't buy the game because of Steam. Lots.

    exactly!
    very well said!

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

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

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

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005, GFree wrote:

    > Their loss I guess.

    wrong! its your loss!
    to play hl2 you sold your dignity! your freedom! your consumer rights!
    so you lose!

    ps: change your alias and erase "free" from it cause it doesn't no longer
    apply to you! a valve gamer is an imprisoned one!

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

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

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

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, "OldDog" wrote:

    > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet connection
    > to play.

    obviously cause its for their own advantage!

    pc games don't need internet connection to play! everyone knows it!
    developers and publisher want it so they can have control over us
    and make us pay more to play pc games!
    its that simple!

    it will be a long hard fight but we must start now and have no
    mercy at all for them!

    > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)

    and me long time come and buried

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

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

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

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, The *real* Nos wrote:

    > And cars will fly too.

    lol!
    that was very funny! :)

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

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

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

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, "JLC" wrote:

    > You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to post about this. It was small
    > paragraph that could have huge implications in the near future. Seems like
    > Steam really got a lot of game developers thinking.
    > This is the line that really got me the most. Mark Rein from Epic Games said
    > this "Unfortunately, gamers are going to have to give up some of their
    > anonymity to play games" That to me is a very scary type of thinking. JLC

    so know do you finally see how right i've been for all these months?
    please give me some credit! please!
    use a filter to take of the insults i unfortunately put but behind all
    my vocal always over the top bad english type of writing, i am right!

    and to reply to mr rein, but who the hell does he think he is, so he
    now sets the rules in the pc game market?
    NO MR REIN YOU DON'T OWN US! YOU DON'T TELL US WHAT WE MUST DO!

    we pc gamers must show developers and publisher they don't control us!

    we must fight for our dignity! for our freedom! for our consumer rights!
    WE MUST FIGHT DAMN IT!
    FIGHT TILL THE END!

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

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

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

    please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 4 Mar 2005 09:29:50 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
    wrote:


    >It wouldn't surprise me.
    >
    >These days new houses are built with phone and plug sockets everywhere
    >in order to accommodate the amount of electronic gear we tend to
    >accumulate.
    >
    >Broadband is continuing to be taken up and is (in word at least)
    >supported by The Powers That Be, so the number of connections is likely
    >to continue increasing.
    >
    >The internet is becoming more and more a part of our daily lives.
    >Newsgroups and forums such as this one, online banking, VOIP, online
    >shopping, music downloads, online gaming, email, web browsing
    >generally. I research and book hotels, flights, car hire over the web.
    >In the UK we can get car tax and insurance online.
    >
    >Take all the above and try to imagine a decade into the future. Well,
    >we'll all be wearing shiny suits and "food" will come in tablet form,
    >but apart from that, it really wouldn't be a shock to find that
    >broadband internet access is as common as mobile phones are now, and
    >consequently it will be no big deal for us to connect to the web to
    >update our console/PC, download and activate our games and play them.
    >
    >Sure, Steam is raising eyebrows now, but in 10 years I think things
    >will be different. Maybe because of Steam?

    They better get a handle on all the spyware, trojans, etc. before
    moving to this type of gaming model because I for one don't leave my
    PC always connected to the internet even with broadband.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "sayNO2steam" wrote
    > GFree wrote:

    >> Their loss I guess.

    > wrong! its your loss!
    > to play hl2 you sold your dignity! your freedom! your consumer rights!
    > so you lose!

    > ps: change your alias and erase "free" from it cause it doesn't no longer
    > apply to you! a valve gamer is an imprisoned one!

    Your alias has got "Steam" in it.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    sayNO2steam wrote:

    > wrong! its your loss!
    > to play hl2 you sold your dignity! your freedom! your consumer rights!
    > so you lose!
    >
    > ps: change your alias and erase "free" from it cause it doesn't no
    > longer apply to you! a valve gamer is an imprisoned one!

    ROFL
    It's ranting posts like this is why I won't killfile you.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:24:01 -0800, Connected
    <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

    >They better get a handle on all the spyware, trojans, etc. before
    >moving to this type of gaming model because I for one don't leave my
    >PC always connected to the internet even with broadband.

    They have these clever newfangled things called Firewall's now. I
    think they will catch on, you might want to check them out.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:32:56 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
    wrote:


    >They have these clever newfangled things called Firewall's now. I
    >think they will catch on, you might want to check them out.

    Got one in my router and a software firewall on my PC but anyone who
    thinks they are impervious is a fool. That be you.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:09:03 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote:

    >At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    >eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet connection
    >to play.

    The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
    bought online by then anyway.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
    <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:


    >The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
    >bought online by then anyway.

    Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
    <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:


    >The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
    >bought online by then anyway.

    p.s. you start downloading gobs and gobs of gb's per month and you
    will soon be getting a call from your ISP. Bandwidth don't come free.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Andrew wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:24:01 -0800, Connected
    > <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>They better get a handle on all the spyware, trojans, etc. before
    >>moving to this type of gaming model because I for one don't leave my
    >>PC always connected to the internet even with broadband.
    >
    >
    > They have these clever newfangled things called Firewall's now. I
    > think they will catch on, you might want to check them out.

    Lol. Just got off the phone with a friend who had broadband today.
    Switched it and bang! - 7 virus's. Just talked him through enabling XP
    SP1 Firewall. I'll be sorting SP2 for him tomorrow plus a good AV.

    If they want this method of distribution to work and become popular
    there is definitely some eductation for noobs and idiots required.

    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:51:51 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
    wrote:

    >Lol. Just got off the phone with a friend who had broadband today.
    >Switched it and bang! - 7 virus's. Just talked him through enabling XP
    >SP1 Firewall. I'll be sorting SP2 for him tomorrow plus a good AV.

    Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
    is a liability that should never be called a firewall.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:43:19 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
    wrote:


    >Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
    >is a liability that should never be called a firewall.

    That's not what some Firewall experts in the Firewall newsgroup think.
    I use Sygate though.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:itdh21tajaar4uns8r2dk6n827hpffjnjg@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:24:01 -0800, Connected
    > <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:
    >
    > >They better get a handle on all the spyware, trojans, etc. before
    > >moving to this type of gaming model because I for one don't leave my
    > >PC always connected to the internet even with broadband.
    >
    > They have these clever newfangled things called Firewall's now. I
    > think they will catch on, you might want to check them out.


    I was just reading my local paper today. They had an article on how to be
    safe while online. The first thing that they recommended to any user to do
    was to hook their computer up to a router-firewall. Even if you're the
    only pc on it. For dial-up users they recommended a software firewall like
    ZoneAlarm.

    Then they went on to cover anti-virus and adware software.

    Sad when we have to put up a defense system just to logon. And then
    deliquesce ourselves after surfing the net.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Connected wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
    > <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
    >>bought online by then anyway.
    >
    >
    > Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.

    Which is probably why providers are gearing up to charge by bandwith
    rather than speed in the UK. My provider just doubled my speed 'for
    free' but has set a cap of 30GB with a charge of £1.95 per additional GB
    after that. Matter of time before they all go that way.

    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:26:15 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
    wrote:


    >Which is probably why providers are gearing up to charge by bandwith
    >rather than speed in the UK. My provider just doubled my speed 'for
    >free' but has set a cap of 30GB with a charge of £1.95 per additional GB
    >after that. Matter of time before they all go that way.

    Well, you get 20gb more than me. I get 10gb down and 3gb up per month,
    I'm not sure what the charges are after that because I've never gone
    over.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:43:19 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

    >On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:51:51 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Lol. Just got off the phone with a friend who had broadband today.
    >>Switched it and bang! - 7 virus's. Just talked him through enabling XP
    >>SP1 Firewall. I'll be sorting SP2 for him tomorrow plus a good AV.
    >
    >Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
    >is a liability that should never be called a firewall.

    Links, please. We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
    but it at least gets the job done.

    Even though I'm already firewalled at the ISP level, I still notice a very
    minor difference in the filtering of the default TCP packet.
    http://www.dslreports.com/scan
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Shawk wrote:
    > Connected wrote:
    >> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
    >> <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
    >>> bought online by then anyway.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.
    >
    > Which is probably why providers are gearing up to charge by bandwith
    > rather than speed in the UK. My provider just doubled my speed 'for
    > free' but has set a cap of 30GB with a charge of £1.95 per additional
    > GB after that. Matter of time before they all go that way.

    how much you payin per month you should look into plusnet you can transfer
    over for free from another provider and its £29.99 per month uncapped 1Mbps

    --


    You're not a God, you're a birthday cake!
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Connected <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

    >p.s. you start downloading gobs and gobs of gb's per month and you
    >will soon be getting a call from your ISP. Bandwidth don't come free.

    <shrug> It's not rocket science to figure they'll find a way to
    incorporate that cost into the price of buying the software.

    Trucks, ships, prime real estate, packaging and discs, and sales
    clerks don't come free either you know ... quite a bit more expensive
    than bandwidth. So clearly they could set up game sales online to
    cost, at worst, the same as store-bought games.

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

    p.s. and you're a pussy for giving in so easlily.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:37:22 -0500, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
    wrote:

    >>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
    >>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.
    >
    >Links, please.

    As you don't seem to ever of heard of www.google.com or any other
    search engine:
    http://soho.sygate.com/download_buy.htm

    > We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
    >but it at least gets the job done.

    IMO it certainly does not get the job done.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Andrew" wrote
    > bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:

    >>>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
    >>>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.

    >>Links, please.

    > As you don't seem to ever of heard of www.google.com or any other
    > search engine:
    > http://soho.sygate.com/download_buy.htm

    >> We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
    >>but it at least gets the job done.

    > IMO it certainly does not get the job done.

    I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
    at how many applications access the Internet.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:59:52 GMT, "Vince"
    <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


    >I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
    >at how many applications access the Internet.
    >

    Um, I found 'sa.windows.com' accessing the internet when I used the
    find feature. Look up what that does. It's benign. What else did you
    find?
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:59:52 GMT, "Vince"
    <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    >I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
    >at how many applications access the Internet.

    Yup. My faith in the SP2 firewall was destroyed within 5 minutes of
    trying it - half of my applications that access the net didn't trigger
    an alert and connected without a problem.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:09:39 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
    wrote:

    >
    >Yup. My faith in the SP2 firewall was destroyed within 5 minutes of
    >trying it - half of my applications that access the net didn't trigger
    >an alert and connected without a problem.

    It's not supposed to. Look, I use Sygate and I can do alot more with
    Sygate than your silly ZA. But the XP SP2 Firewall is not fluff
    either. They are just trying make it simple for the newby. I've used
    ZA Pro and it is pathetic. Ask permissions for every .dll etc. WTF is
    that? You know what all those .dll's are doing? I don't and I doubt
    most people do either.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Hi
    I am all for a steam like distribution system.
    The only thing I don't like is that the games have to call home <copy
    protection> everytime you want to play them.<although I already have a
    emulator for steam runing on my pc>

    I beleve d/l model for games great <see stardock.com>
    It allows me to get the game quicker easier cheaper then the store.
    I also feel that the people who write the games should get the lion share of
    the profit not some suit.

    By distributing there stuff by the inet It will alow the studios to produce
    games that would never make it in the stores<the suits only want clones of
    what sold eg doom3 ect>

    Also allows them to deal directly with thier customers...thier customers
    <what the customer wants for expantion support eg>

    I can get them quicker i don't have to preorder at EB<another profit scam
    ;)>
    I get it the day they release it<something Warez has better then retail now>
    I don't have to spend 2hrs of my time going to the store to find out they
    are sold out of the 2 copys they had<do you want to put a deposit down so we
    will hold a copy for you ? ;)>

    It also allows the people who produce the games to get the profit
    directly....
    The courrent modle the retailers don't make thier money not by actuly
    selling the games they rent shelf space to the Publishers /wholesallers.
    The publishing houses make the money from the sale....
    and the devloper gets a pitance maybe...

    Web base distribution if fast convient and allows us to pay <or not pay> the
    ones who make the games.


    "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    > lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >
    > At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    > eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    > connection
    > to play.
    >
    > This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    >
    >
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:00:07 -0800, Connected
    <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

    >It's not supposed to. Look, I use Sygate and I can do alot more with
    >Sygate than your silly ZA.

    Try reading the thread, I use and recommend Sygate. After bad
    experiences in the past and read many more, wouldn't go near ZA.

    > But the XP SP2 Firewall is not fluff
    >either. They are just trying make it simple for the newby. I've used
    >ZA Pro and it is pathetic. Ask permissions for every .dll etc. WTF is
    >that? You know what all those .dll's are doing? I don't and I doubt
    >most people do either.

    I wasn't referring to DLL's, I was referring to the fact that I had
    actual non MS applications that got through the SP2 firewall without a
    murmur. It is a complete liability that MS should be ashamed of.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:17:11 -0800, Connected
    <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

    >On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
    ><jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
    >>bought online by then anyway.
    >
    >Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.

    Yea, and I will have to hook my laptop up to an overpriced internet
    connection when I fly so that I can play a single-player game to pass
    the time ? Oh, I forgot there will be "offline mode".... I just have
    to remember to enable it on my laptop and disable the game on my
    desktop before I rush out the door to the flight. Can't have 2
    runnable copies of a single download purchase....that would not
    please G..weedledum and D..weedledee at Valve ( for example ) or
    Rein-in-the-horses at Epic....

    Yeah, right...and all I need today is just carry a selection of
    game-CD/DVDswith me on my trip to legally validate play, with the
    games already pre-installed ( and patched ). No futzing with inane
    on-line permission-juggling from anal-retentive developers.....

    Well, it seems that my large collection of classic stand-alone
    single-player PC games ( including thick printed manuals for
    many ) will suddenly become valuable in this future ??utopia??
    of total-internet-connectivity and game-developer bully-boys.
    Bring it on............

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

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:51:07 GMT, "TheLoanArranger"
    <somewhere@wallawallawalla.com> wrote:


    >I don't think Valve want to cater to ranting pricks like yourself or your
    >buddy DiFoooool.
    >Good job, really.
    >Tosser.
    >
    We have our millions of minions too don't forget.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:YFdWd.294183$K7.75436@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > "Andrew" wrote
    >> bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:
    >
    >>>>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
    >>>>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.
    >
    >>>Links, please.
    >
    >> As you don't seem to ever of heard of www.google.com or any other
    >> search engine:
    >> http://soho.sygate.com/download_buy.htm
    >
    >>> We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
    >>>but it at least gets the job done.
    >
    >> IMO it certainly does not get the job done.
    >
    > I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
    > at how many applications access the Internet.

    The best thing the ZA Pro does is block banner ads. It works very well, and
    doesn't slow down page loading.It's also very handy to be informed about
    which programs are trying to phone home.
    Even MS optical mouse wants to phone home. And it doesn't have anything to
    do with updating the drivers. A hardware firewall is the best way to go, and
    simple routers are cheap these days, but a SW firewall is handy to see what
    is trying to connect out from your PC. JLC
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Connected <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

    >...you dumb cunt.

    The cogency of your argument defeats me. I bow before your
    intellectual prowess.

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

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:18:39 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote:


    >The cogency of your argument defeats me. I bow before your
    >intellectual prowess.
    >
    >Joe

    Thx, It's wonders what meds and a case of beer can do for one's
    intellect.
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Alfie [UK]" wrote

    > I jumped from BTO to PlusNet when BT were introducing BTY. It seems most
    > ISPs have trouble providing a Usenet feed these days :)

    My own provider, Blueyonder, has a perfect Internet service they don't
    guarantee Newsgroups at all.

    I sometimes think I miss half of the posts on this group.

    Now if I could only choose which half...
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:26:13 -0500, "Rick Ryan"
    <nighthawk@axecessnet.net> wrote:

    >Hi
    >I am all for a steam like distribution system.
    >The only thing I don't like is that the games have to call home <copy
    >protection> everytime you want to play them.<although I already have a
    >emulator for steam runing on my pc>
    >
    >I beleve d/l model for games great <see stardock.com>
    >It allows me to get the game quicker easier cheaper then the store.
    >I also feel that the people who write the games should get the lion share of
    >the profit not some suit.
    >

    Must be a FPS and arcade-style game-player. Dumb enough game-play
    not to need any sort of game-manual.

    Wanna download, print and bind the >100-page manual for a decent RPG
    or >200-page manual for a decent flight-sim ? I just happen to have
    the NWN Platinum Edition manual handy ---- 224 pages.....very nicely
    spiral-bound too....

    Ever try thumbing through a detailed manual on a computer screen when
    you are not looking for a specific topic, or when you are just trying
    to familiarize yourself quickly and efficiently with a new game or
    productivity tool ?

    Haven't seen any of the download-proponents factor in the print and
    bind (and time-wasted) cost for a DIY-on-one's-printer-manual.
    Currently included in the retail price for those games that need
    manuals --- sale price better.

    BTW, haven't seen many download developers offer 1 or 2-week sale
    prices... no need, they have a monopoly.

    For example, look at Valve's current prices on Steam for HL2, compared
    with the current retail prices. Oh... I see that they have now reduced
    the HL2 "Gold" on Steam from $89.95 to $84.95.... how very generous!!
    Babbage's standard price for the retail Collector's Edition is now
    $59.99 ( and Babbage's is NOT noted for discounts ) and typical
    pricing for the base retail HL2 is now $39.99, with sale-discounts to
    $34.99.

    Yeah... downloaded games is sure the way to go.....right !
    Certainly convenient ( and a useful ALTERNATE to retail ) for those
    out in the sticks with high transport costs ( and no UPS delivery ?),
    but this group does not represent the demographics of the majority
    of PC game-players. Of course, there will always be the game-fanatic
    who requires the instant gratification of download/play immediately a
    game is released ... they will be quite happy to pay any
    price....since they have no other life (apart from work.. if they
    work)...the PC/console equivalent to the TV couch-potato.

    John Lewis


    >By distributing there stuff by the inet It will alow the studios to produce
    >games that would never make it in the stores<the suits only want clones of
    >what sold eg doom3 ect>
    >
    >Also allows them to deal directly with thier customers...thier customers
    ><what the customer wants for expantion support eg>
    >
    >I can get them quicker i don't have to preorder at EB<another profit scam
    >;)>
    >I get it the day they release it<something Warez has better then retail now>
    >I don't have to spend 2hrs of my time going to the store to find out they
    >are sold out of the 2 copys they had<do you want to put a deposit down so we
    >will hold a copy for you ? ;)>
    >
    >It also allows the people who produce the games to get the profit
    >directly....
    >The courrent modle the retailers don't make thier money not by actuly
    >selling the games they rent shelf space to the Publishers /wholesallers.
    >The publishing houses make the money from the sale....
    >and the devloper gets a pitance maybe...
    >
    >Web base distribution if fast convient and allows us to pay <or not pay> the
    >ones who make the games.
    >
    >
    >"OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    >news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    >> Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
    >> lastest PCGamer magazine.
    >>
    >> At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
    >> eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
    >> connection
    >> to play.
    >>
    >> This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time. ;)
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games CES Video Games