Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why so many objections to Steam?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 11, 2005 3:15:08 AM

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

Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
missed all the hoopla.

Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just seeking
out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or flaming,
just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.

Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me. Since my PC
is usually on, the patches get installed while I am at work, thus
CS:Source is always "ready to play".

Aside from that benefit I am not passionate about the issue one way or
the other. I bought HL2 in a retail box, the good old fashioned way.
If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered it but
it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a box etc.

So, why do others hate Steam?

More about : objections steam

Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:15:09 AM

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

MB wrote:

> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just seeking
> out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or flaming,
> just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.

Steam is not evil. People who say that are over-dramatic fools. Steam can be
annoying if you have dial up, but that is not an act of evil. Steam was
created in part so Valve can make more money on a product they created
rather than giving most of it to a publisher. They also took advantage of
current technology to let people download their products. As a side effect
to that this is most likely where file validation came from, to stop piracy
(which didn't completely work, but it is better than the program detectors
like Starforce which will not install a game if certain copy programs are
found). Steam was not created to force people to give up their identity and
security so Gabe Newell can track you down and pillage your house and eat
your food when Steam tells him no one is home.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:25:27 AM

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

Andrew wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:48:00 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:
> > >There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
> > >create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
> > >contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
> > >have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
> > >modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
> > >used Steam are quite happy with it.
> >
> >Anyone who *likes* product activation and hours of their time wasted
> >is a surrender monkey.
>
> Make that three idiots.

Might as well make it four then by that logic. Steam is a step in the
wrong direction. What's the point to forcing Steam onto a system and
making paying customers register the product they bought? 'To stop
pirates'? It happens anyways! Sin 2 might be the first game I buy
with Steam included since the first entries into the Sin series were
loads of fun, but we'll have to wait and see.

--
Best Regards, mattchu
np: X-pulsion - Heaven Only Knows
Related resources
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 8:15:20 AM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:15:08 -0400, MB <nospam@please.net> wrote:

>
>
>If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered it but
>it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a box etc.
>
>So, why do others hate Steam?

you got a printed manual with yours? i bought the 'collector's edition
DVD' and all i got was a lousy small reference card.. but onto Steam..
personally i like it, i've never had any problems with it, it's simple
and easy to use - although it's much easier if you have DSL or faster
... wouldn't want to use it if i was still on dial-up though.
I think most people object to the fact that you have to authenicate
the software through Steam, although Microsoft did this with Win XP
too and i didn't see too many people complaining about that.. still to
each his own..

toadie
July 11, 2005 11:19:38 AM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:15:08 -0400, MB <nospam@please.net> wrote:

>Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
>missed all the hoopla.

There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
used Steam are quite happy with it.
--
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.
July 11, 2005 11:19:39 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:19:38 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:


>There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
>create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
>contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
>have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
>modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
>used Steam are quite happy with it.

Anyone who *likes* product activation and hours of their time wasted
is a surrender monkey.
July 11, 2005 11:48:46 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:48:00 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:

>>There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
>>create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
>>contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
>>have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
>>modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
>>used Steam are quite happy with it.
>
>Anyone who *likes* product activation and hours of their time wasted
>is a surrender monkey.

Make that three idiots.
--
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.
July 11, 2005 12:38:34 PM

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

On 11 Jul 2005 00:25:27 -0700, "mattchu" <wintlerpark@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Might as well make it four then by that logic. Steam is a step in the
>wrong direction. What's the point to forcing Steam onto a system and
>making paying customers register the product they bought? 'To stop
>pirates'? It happens anyways! Sin 2 might be the first game I buy
>with Steam included since the first entries into the Sin series were
>loads of fun, but we'll have to wait and see.

Not liking or wanting Steam doesn't make you an idiot in my book, I
was just referring to the previous poster who seemed to infer that
your PC is incapable of downloading software without you watching it
for hours, or using the pathetic term "surrender monkey". I have no
problem with the Steam model, and much prefer it to the much more
insidious DRM model.
--
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.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:32:44 PM

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

I don't like having to activate Steam to play offline. I don't like the
possibility in the future I won't be able to play the game. So I haven't
bought it.

I also don't like the fact that, despite the lower costs for Valve, they
don't pass any of the savings onto the consumer. 55 dollars for a game that
is pure profit for Valve is IMO a losing proposition for consumers. We
aren't talking about Garage Games here, which sells their downloaded games
for 10 bucks or so.

PC games are too expensive already, there's an upwards price trend. I
personally cannot afford to spend any more than 30-35 bucks on any game.
Paying 50-60 bucks for a game that makes playing it a hassle is just not
worth it.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:01:40 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, MB wrote:

> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me.

This could be good but it could also be bad. Is it only me, or do others
here have the impressing too, that Valve is constantly fixing something,
sometimes even reverting changes, instead of releasing a few well tested
patches that make everything right. Which version number has HL2 now ;) ?

> So, why do others hate Steam?

I'm on dial up so this point should be clear.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
July 11, 2005 3:01:41 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:01:40 +0200, Werner Spahl
<spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

>This could be good but it could also be bad. Is it only me, or do others
>here have the impressing too, that Valve is constantly fixing something,
>sometimes even reverting changes, instead of releasing a few well tested
>patches that make everything right. Which version number has HL2 now ;) ?

Like EA did with BF2? Sorry guys we screwed up the patch, please
uninstall the game then reinstall it back to the original version.
Given the choice, as I am on broadband, I much prefer the Steam
approach.
--
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.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:48:12 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:24:10 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:01:40 +0200, Werner Spahl
><spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>>This could be good but it could also be bad. Is it only me, or do others
>>here have the impressing too, that Valve is constantly fixing something,
>>sometimes even reverting changes, instead of releasing a few well tested
>>patches that make everything right. Which version number has HL2 now ;) ?
>
>Like EA did with BF2? Sorry guys we screwed up the patch, please
>uninstall the game then reinstall it back to the original version.
>Given the choice, as I am on broadband, I much prefer the Steam
>approach.

So how would the Steam approach worked in the same situation, if BF2
had been a Steam game? Does Steam make its games immune to problems in
patches, and does it somehow make it possible to revert back to old
patch/original installation without having to reinstall the game or
reverting to earlier backups of the game? It doesn't.

Before you say it is easy to use an older Steam game backup in case
something goes wrong with the update... how many times have you backed
up your HL2 Steam folder before a scheduled incoming update, hmmm?

Just a few days ago I read in another forum complaints from a HL2
owner who was having "memory problems" with the newer Steam/HL2
patches, and he needed to know what is the easiest way to revert back
to old HL2 installation without any patches, where the problem does
not appear. For some reason Steam kept switching auto-update back on
for him...
July 11, 2005 4:52:45 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:12:06 -0600, "Hank the Rapper"
<xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

>Steam is not evil. People who say that are over-dramatic fools.
Steam is evil and anyone telling you otherwise is just a fool.
July 11, 2005 4:55:29 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:38:34 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

> I have no
>problem with the Steam model,

surrender monkey
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:40:47 PM

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

the fantastic gerbil wrote:
> MB <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
>>missed all the hoopla.
>
>
> The online activation is the main complaint.

No it isn't.

The online activation takes a few seconds.

The main complaint was people not undertsanding how to turn off
auto-downloads which could hog dial ups.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:42:06 PM

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

mattchu wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:48:00 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:
>>
>>>>There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
>>>>create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
>>>>contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
>>>>have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
>>>>modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
>>>>used Steam are quite happy with it.
>>>
>>>Anyone who *likes* product activation and hours of their time wasted
>>>is a surrender monkey.
>>
>>Make that three idiots.
>
>
> Might as well make it four then by that logic. Steam is a step in the
> wrong direction. What's the point to forcing Steam onto a system and
> making paying customers register the product they bought? 'To stop
> pirates'? It happens anyways! Sin 2 might be the first game I buy
> with Steam included since the first entries into the Sin series were
> loads of fun, but we'll have to wait and see.
>

To prove you bought it. Whats so hard to understand?

Or does it hurt your feelings?

By your rational you should be able to walk out of a store with a color
tv under your arm and not be challenged as to whether you paid for it.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:51:15 PM

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

MB wrote:
> Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
> missed all the hoopla.
>
> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just seeking
> out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or flaming,
> just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.
>
> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me. Since my PC
> is usually on, the patches get installed while I am at work, thus
> CS:Source is always "ready to play".
>
> Aside from that benefit I am not passionate about the issue one way or
> the other. I bought HL2 in a retail box, the good old fashioned way.
> If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered it but
> it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a box etc.
>
> So, why do others hate Steam?

There is a (somewhat) legitimate complain that if the Steam servers ever
pack up and die (i.e. Valve is no longer in business), people will be
unable to play ANY Steam-based games anymore. HL2, CS:S, etc will become
unplayable because they all use Steam as the backend for all their I/O
calls. Hence, we are at the mercy of Valve...
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:58:03 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Walter Mitty wrote:

> The main complaint was people not understanding how to turn off
> auto-downloads which could hog dial ups.

How to get any patches on dial up after turning auto-download off? No
more 3dgamers with someone elses broadband...

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:00:06 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Andrew wrote:

> Like EA did with BF2? Sorry guys we screwed up the patch, please
> uninstall the game then reinstall it back to the original version.
> Given the choice, as I am on broadband, I much prefer the Steam
> approach.

Why this? Because they forced you to download the patch and then forced
you to revert it? With BF2 there would have been at least a chance that
you didn't download it at all, before the trouble have been known out in
the open ;) .

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
July 11, 2005 6:00:07 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:00:06 +0200, Werner Spahl
<spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

>Why this? Because they forced you to download the patch and then forced
>you to revert it? With BF2 there would have been at least a chance that
>you didn't download it at all, before the trouble have been known out in
>the open ;) .

Well as most of the servers moved to the new patch as well you pretty
much were forced to apply it, then revert.
--
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.
July 11, 2005 6:10:48 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:48:12 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:

>So how would the Steam approach worked in the same situation, if BF2
>had been a Steam game? Does Steam make its games immune to problems in
>patches, and does it somehow make it possible to revert back to old
>patch/original installation without having to reinstall the game or
>reverting to earlier backups of the game? It doesn't.

In the early days of HL2 a patch was issued then within a day or two
revoked, all I had to do was wait a couple of minutes while Steam took
care of everything, never having to worry about what was happening
under the hood. After getting used to the convenience of Steam, having
to manually patch games seems so old fashioned.
--
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.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:25:49 PM

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

Quoth The Raven "MB"<nospam@please.net> in
9oo3d11sfjka3o3l872327onmi3g2gv1ah@4ax.com
> Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
> missed all the hoopla.
>
> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just seeking
> out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or flaming,
> just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.
>
> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me. Since my PC
> is usually on, the patches get installed while I am at work, thus
> CS:Source is always "ready to play".
>
> Aside from that benefit I am not passionate about the issue one way or
> the other. I bought HL2 in a retail box, the good old fashioned way.
> If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered it but
> it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a box etc.
>
> So, why do others hate Steam?

love it, works fine. the only thing I have against it is you cant store
incremental patches once you've burnt the main files to DVD. I rarely pirate
games so the authentication doesn't bother me. therefore once I finished the
game I didn't bother uninstalling it, if only to have updated media should I
once and for all decide to backup and delete the latest files.

--
<now playing> The Clash - London Calling

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:28:49 PM

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

Quoth The Raven "GFree"<gfree678@gmail.com> in
42d1f3b1_1@news.iprimus.com.au
> MB wrote:
>> Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
>> missed all the hoopla.
>>
>> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just
>> seeking out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or
>> flaming, just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.
>>
>> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
>> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me. Since my PC
>> is usually on, the patches get installed while I am at work, thus
>> CS:Source is always "ready to play".
>>
>> Aside from that benefit I am not passionate about the issue one way
>> or the other. I bought HL2 in a retail box, the good old fashioned
>> way. If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered
>> it but it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a
>> box etc.
>> So, why do others hate Steam?
>
> There is a (somewhat) legitimate complain that if the Steam servers
> ever pack up and die (i.e. Valve is no longer in business), people
> will be unable to play ANY Steam-based games anymore. HL2, CS:S, etc
> will become unplayable because they all use Steam as the backend for
> all their I/O calls. Hence, we are at the mercy of Valve...

but I daresay that steam will keep going after valve closes, there are other
games now(sin) coming out on steam that have nothing to do with the valve
team. even if steam should close down, there would be a final patch that
opens it up to all servers.

--
<now playing> The Clash - London Calling

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:28:50 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:28:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>> There is a (somewhat) legitimate complain that if the Steam servers
>> ever pack up and die (i.e. Valve is no longer in business), people
>> will be unable to play ANY Steam-based games anymore. HL2, CS:S, etc
>> will become unplayable because they all use Steam as the backend for
>> all their I/O calls. Hence, we are at the mercy of Valve...
>
>but I daresay that steam will keep going after valve closes, there are other
>games now(sin) coming out on steam that have nothing to do with the valve
>team.

What makes you think so? After all, Valve is the _publisher_ of all
games released through Steam, so if the publisher dies, it usually
means bye bye to all the old games too.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/sinepisodes1/index.ht...

SiN Episodes: Emergence
Publisher: Valve Software


The only games that _might_ be saved and bought out by some other
company would be some multiplayer MMORPG games with thousands of
monthly paying customers, but we are talking about forced activation
of single-player games here.

>even if steam should close down, there would be a final patch that
>opens it up to all servers.

Why would they do such charity work for nothing? It is not like it
would bring them any more money, and their developers (who would code
that final patch) would have fled the company probably long before the
actual bankruptcy. It is much more common in PC gaming market for the
company/publisher just to drop support for their old, non-money making
game.
July 11, 2005 7:28:50 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:28:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>Quoth The Raven "GFree"<gfree678@gmail.com> in
>42d1f3b1_1@news.iprimus.com.au
>> MB wrote:
>>> Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
>>> missed all the hoopla.
>>>
>>> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just
>>> seeking out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or
>>> flaming, just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.
>>>
>>> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
>>> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me. Since my PC
>>> is usually on, the patches get installed while I am at work, thus
>>> CS:Source is always "ready to play".
>>>
>>> Aside from that benefit I am not passionate about the issue one way
>>> or the other. I bought HL2 in a retail box, the good old fashioned
>>> way. If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered
>>> it but it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a
>>> box etc.
>>> So, why do others hate Steam?
>>
>> There is a (somewhat) legitimate complain that if the Steam servers
>> ever pack up and die (i.e. Valve is no longer in business), people
>> will be unable to play ANY Steam-based games anymore. HL2, CS:S, etc
>> will become unplayable because they all use Steam as the backend for
>> all their I/O calls. Hence, we are at the mercy of Valve...
>
>but I daresay that steam will keep going after valve closes, there are other
>games now(sin) coming out on steam that have nothing to do with the valve
>team. even if steam should close down, there would be a final patch that
>opens it up to all servers.

Prove it.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:43:43 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:15:20 GMT, toadie05@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:15:08 -0400, MB <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered it but
>>it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a box etc.
>>
>>So, why do others hate Steam?
>
>you got a printed manual with yours? i bought the 'collector's edition
>DVD' and all i got was a lousy small reference card.. but onto Steam..
>personally i like it, i've never had any problems with it, it's simple
>and easy to use - although it's much easier if you have DSL or faster
>.. wouldn't want to use it if i was still on dial-up though.
>I think most people object to the fact that you have to authenicate
>the software through Steam, although Microsoft did this with Win XP
>too and i didn't see too many people complaining about that.. still to
>each his own..
>
>toadie

M$$$ is likely to be around long after Valve and Steam have vaporized.

John Lewis
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:48:31 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:28:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:


>but I daresay that steam will keep going after valve closes, there are other
>games now(sin) coming out on steam that have nothing to do with the valve
>team. even if steam should close down, there would be a final patch that
>opens it up to all servers.
>

Please quote the relevant sentence guaranteeing the above action in
the HL2 EULA.

Please don't pursue a legal profession, your clients would not be
happy. Oh, and by the way, I am sure that I can find a suitable
bridge for you to buy.

John Lewis

>--
><now playing> The Clash - London Calling
>
>Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 8:23:04 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:10:48 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:48:12 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>So how would the Steam approach worked in the same situation, if BF2
>>had been a Steam game? Does Steam make its games immune to problems in
>>patches, and does it somehow make it possible to revert back to old
>>patch/original installation without having to reinstall the game or
>>reverting to earlier backups of the game? It doesn't.
>
>In the early days of HL2 a patch was issued then within a day or two
>revoked, all I had to do was wait a couple of minutes while Steam took
>care of everything, never having to worry about what was happening
>under the hood.

Sure, not having to worry about the 50 Meg or so of download to
unfix the broken patch. Nice to have unmetered broadband.

> After getting used to the convenience of Steam, having
>to manually patch games seems so old fashioned.
>--

Not needing the Steam umbilical at all gives the illusion of actually
owning a single-player game. Old-fashioned, really.

John Lewis

>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.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 8:53:59 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:32:44 -0400, "Magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I don't like having to activate Steam to play offline. I don't like the
>possibility in the future I won't be able to play the game. So I haven't
>bought it.
>
> I also don't like the fact that, despite the lower costs for Valve, they
>don't pass any of the savings onto the consumer. 55 dollars for a game that
>is pure profit for Valve is IMO a losing proposition for consumers. We
>aren't talking about Garage Games here, which sells their downloaded games
>for 10 bucks or so.
>
> PC games are too expensive already, there's an upwards price trend. I
>personally cannot afford to spend any more than 30-35 bucks on any game.
>Paying 50-60 bucks for a game that makes playing it a hassle is just not
>worth it.
>
>

I got GTA:San Andreas on sale the weekend after it came out @ $29.99
(CompUSA).

Try that with a Steam game, especially in the brave new download-only
world of Valve, Ritual etc. Can you spell m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y ??

If/when download versions of premier games are competitively-priced,
say $20 less than what they might sell retail, ( $29.99 instead of
$49.99) so the the developer splits the distribution/retail overhead
with real customers, then I might become a convert. But the
current on-line price(s) of HL2 are examples of greed at its worst
$84.95 (Gold), $59.95 (Silver) , $49.95 (Bronze). Gabe hungry...
feed Gabe....

Fry's and Best Buy are currently selling HL2 (Bronze) for $37.99
and my local EBX sold off their last half-dozen copies of HL2
Collector's Edition ( mid-way between Gold and Silver) for $29.99
about a month ago to clear shelves for new stock. No bargains, no
one-day sales, no weekly sales on www.steampowered.com.
NEVER.

And Ritual's proposed download price of $20 per episode of Sin 2
for about 6 hours of play is about the going RETAIL rate. Serious Sam
1 and 2 were both $19.99 (retail) for a lot more than 6 hours of
play.

The brave new world of downloaded single-player games, packaged
with convenient umbilical cords.

How many in this newsgroup wear both blinkers and rose-colored
spectacles and/or have money to burn ?

John Lewis
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:41:08 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:28:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>Quoth The Raven "GFree"<gfree678@gmail.com> in
>42d1f3b1_1@news.iprimus.com.au
>> There is a (somewhat) legitimate complain that if the Steam servers
>> ever pack up and die (i.e. Valve is no longer in business), people
>> will be unable to play ANY Steam-based games anymore. HL2, CS:S, etc
>> will become unplayable because they all use Steam as the backend for
>> all their I/O calls. Hence, we are at the mercy of Valve...
>
>but I daresay that steam will keep going after valve closes, there are other
>games now(sin) coming out on steam that have nothing to do with the valve
>team. even if steam should close down, there would be a final patch that
>opens it up to all servers.

There's no guarantee of that, and I think that's a major complaint. What
happens if Valve get too big for their boots, their next game is a flop,
and they start reducing content servers to save money, or even go under
? No one will offer you any guarantee that Steam will still be
available, that it will be open sourced, or that anyone will take it
over (although I'm sure a few companies would like to). If Steam is
unavailable for whatever reason and you have auto-update set you will
not be able to play even the single-player game. If you buy a new game
and the content servers are overloaded you will not be able to
authenticate and play.

If they really wanted to go down the route of on-line distribution only
why didn't they offer the download version slightly cheaper ? Doesn't
have to be massively cheaper, but would have eased the migration of game
buyer's and assuaged fears that all future Steam games will be 'on-line
only' if they can see a good reason i.e. cheaper games. Show the punters
what they get for giving up some of their current buying trends and
they'd be more likely to follow you. OK, they might not have done this
with HL2 because of the original deal with Vivendi, but there is no
evidence that future Steam games will be any cheaper.

Steam was initially sold to the public as an anti-cheat measure (as well
as content delivery). It hasn't worked well at that, and has led to more
speculation that it's about controlling how we buy and play games and
not anti-cheat.

Auto-patching is a nice idea, but what happens if you let the latest
updates install then find your fave Steam game no longer works on your
PC ? Unless you're tech-savvy, and have forward planned, you can't roll
back to a lower update version. You're stuck with finding out why it's
stopped working and hoping the next update fixes the problem or that
it's hardware-related and you can upgrade.

Why are Valve trying to block the re-sale market so heavily ? It's
obviously down to money, but it could be claimed that they misled, and
misinformed, initial buyers into thinking that an account transfer
facility would be available later on. It is but you have to pay for the
priviledge, and for those that again forward planned and set up each
game on a different account Valve have been trying to block account
trading.

All in all Steam sounds good on paper, but the benefits are heavily in
the producer's court and not the game buyer's/player's.

--
Alfie
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/&gt;
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:35:46 PM

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

"MB" <nospam@please.net> wrote in message
news:9oo3d11sfjka3o3l872327onmi3g2gv1ah@4ax.com...
>
> Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
> missed all the hoopla.
>
> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming. I am just seeking
> out your opinions here and have no intention of debating or flaming,
> just want to know why Steam is considered evil by some.
>
> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me. Since my PC
> is usually on, the patches get installed while I am at work, thus
> CS:Source is always "ready to play".
>
> Aside from that benefit I am not passionate about the issue one way or
> the other. I bought HL2 in a retail box, the good old fashioned way.
> If buying online was ten bucks cheaper I might have considered it but
> it wasn't it, so for my dollar I want a printed manual and a box etc.
>
> So, why do others hate Steam?

To start: The fact that you cannot play the game without registering to
Valve. The fact that you can't play the game after registration without
periodic authentication in "offline" mode. The fact that you cannot make any
manual decisions on patches.

It's all well and good that you like having your decisions made for you with
no choice on the matter, but I don't want to be told by Valve or any other
game company what and when I can do with the game that I paid money for.
Thus, I will never buy a game that requires Steam.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:40:41 PM

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

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:1j34d1ddd8rcs127i1hgef4c11j33t7aqc@4ax.com...
>>Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
>>missed all the hoopla.
>
> There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
> create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
> contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
> have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
> modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
> used Steam are quite happy with it.

Your dismissal of everyone who brings up valid reasons why they dislikes
Steam reduces what little credibility you have left on this issue even
further.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:52:19 PM

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

In article <3jf485Fpf5roU2@uni-berlin.de>,
Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>To prove you bought it. Whats so hard to understand?

If I actually go and steal the game from a local store and I end up in
court, the burden of proof does not rest on me. When I buy a product,
however, I should suddenly have to repeatedly present evidence that I
did, indeed, pay money for it? Excuse me for voting with my wallet ...

>By your rational you should be able to walk out of a store with a color
>tv under your arm and not be challenged as to whether you paid for it.

Actually, I can. The police has a monopoly on the use of force around
here and so no one could actually stop me except by breaking the law.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:58:11 PM

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

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42d29d41.13078192@news.verizon.net...

> And Ritual's proposed download price of $20 per episode of Sin 2
> for about 6 hours of play is about the going RETAIL rate. Serious Sam
> 1 and 2 were both $19.99 (retail) for a lot more than 6 hours of
> play.

There will be something like 6 SiN2 episodes at $20 each... that's $120 for
a single game without any installation media or anything tangible. Total
ripoff.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:59:14 PM

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

Kroagnon wrote:

> There will be something like 6 SiN2 episodes at $20 each... that's
> $120 for a single game without any installation media or anything
> tangible. Total ripoff.

It is a rip off but would it be a better rip off if people paid $20 for each
episode that was released in retail because they had a disc? This is not the
fault of Steam. It is the fault of Ritual. They are the ones who want to do
it. Personally, I think it will fail.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:00:58 AM

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

cccc@home.net wrote:

> Steam is evil and anyone telling you otherwise is just a fool.

No, bunny rabbits are evil. You must live an easy life if you find a stupid
piece of software that is voluntary to use evil.
July 12, 2005 1:09:09 AM

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

"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, MB wrote:
>
>> Probably the sole reason I like it is because the process of
>> installing a new patch every few weeks really annoys me.
>
> This could be good but it could also be bad. Is it only me, or do others
> here have the impressing too, that Valve is constantly fixing something,
> sometimes even reverting changes, instead of releasing a few well tested
> patches that make everything right. Which version number has HL2 now ;) ?
>
>> So, why do others hate Steam?
>
> I'm on dial up so this point should be clear.

Same here. I actually had to reinstall Windows XP this morning, and I'm
still waiting until I can play Half Life 2 again. I have no idea what Steam
is doing right now, but it says it's preparing me to play Half Life 2.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:28:55 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:19:38 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:15:08 -0400, MB <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>
>>Just curious. I know some folks don't like it, but I apparently
>>missed all the hoopla.
>
>There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
>create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
>contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
>have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
>modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
>used Steam are quite happy with it.

Totally agree with that. If I want to play one of the few online mods it is
just a few mouseclicks away. In comparison, downloading updates from Windows
Update is more involved.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:30:27 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:48:00 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:19:38 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
>wrote:
>
>
>>There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
>>create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
>>contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
>>have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
>>modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
>>used Steam are quite happy with it.
>
>Anyone who *likes* product activation and hours of their time wasted
>is a surrender monkey.

Hours? Can you back that up with proof? Are you on dial up? If so then that
isn't the products fault. I believe the only thing Valve should have changed
on their packaging is "Internect connection required" to "Broadband Internet
connection recommended". If it said that I wonder how many people here would
be still moaning about it.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:33:02 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:42:06 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote:

>mattchu wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:48:00 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>There are two complete idiots in this group that hate it and they
>>>>>create 99.9999% of the noise on the issue. There are a few normal
>>>>>contributors that don't like it, probably mainly because they don't
>>>>>have broadband at home or the patience/dialup package to use it via a
>>>>>modem. Most of the rest of us who have broadband and have actually
>>>>>used Steam are quite happy with it.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone who *likes* product activation and hours of their time wasted
>>>>is a surrender monkey.
>>>
>>>Make that three idiots.
>>
>>
>> Might as well make it four then by that logic. Steam is a step in the
>> wrong direction. What's the point to forcing Steam onto a system and
>> making paying customers register the product they bought? 'To stop
>> pirates'? It happens anyways! Sin 2 might be the first game I buy
>> with Steam included since the first entries into the Sin series were
>> loads of fun, but we'll have to wait and see.
>>
>
>To prove you bought it. Whats so hard to understand?
>
>Or does it hurt your feelings?
>
>By your rational you should be able to walk out of a store with a color
>tv under your arm and not be challenged as to whether you paid for it.

He has a fair point there to be honest. I never register any of my games
normally. The only ones I have required CD keys for online play. I don't do
this for any other reason than I cannot be bothered. And also I know the main
reason is they want my e-mail address and stick me on yet another list. I get
enough junk e-mail as it is and if I can download patches for their games
without registering then I will.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:33:03 AM

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

Memnoch wrote:

> And also I know the main reason is they want my e-mail address and
> stick me on yet another list. I get enough junk e-mail as it is and
> if I can download patches for their games without registering then I
> will.

There is an easy way around that. Set up a free yahoo account. I used to
always give my mindspring email account for these things and got spammed to
hell and back. When I joined Comcast I decided I'm only giving my email
account to select family members and friends and I set up a separate account
for work. I started my xflopgoon yahoo account for online shopping,
registration, etc and I have never received one piece of spam on my Comcast
email in two years.

P.S. I have not received one piece of spam Valve or Steam related.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:36:40 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:24:10 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:01:40 +0200, Werner Spahl
><spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>>This could be good but it could also be bad. Is it only me, or do others
>>here have the impressing too, that Valve is constantly fixing something,
>>sometimes even reverting changes, instead of releasing a few well tested
>>patches that make everything right. Which version number has HL2 now ;) ?
>
>Like EA did with BF2? Sorry guys we screwed up the patch, please
>uninstall the game then reinstall it back to the original version.
>Given the choice, as I am on broadband, I much prefer the Steam
>approach.

Although this memory leak problem with the 1.01 BF2 patch does not affect all
users. I have it installed and played for hours and hours on end at the
weekend and had no problems at all. I have 2GB of RAM so whether that helps or
not I don't know but even if I did have the problem, the fact that the in game
browser now actually works far outweighs the problem. Those who have the game
will appreciate this fact I am sure. By the way, here are my stats if anyone
is at all interested:

http://bf2stats.ausgamers.com/stats/45061766
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:39:58 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:10:48 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:48:12 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>So how would the Steam approach worked in the same situation, if BF2
>>had been a Steam game? Does Steam make its games immune to problems in
>>patches, and does it somehow make it possible to revert back to old
>>patch/original installation without having to reinstall the game or
>>reverting to earlier backups of the game? It doesn't.
>
>In the early days of HL2 a patch was issued then within a day or two
>revoked, all I had to do was wait a couple of minutes while Steam took
>care of everything, never having to worry about what was happening
>under the hood. After getting used to the convenience of Steam, having
>to manually patch games seems so old fashioned.

That's how I remember it. The only reason I knew it happened was because I
keep an eye on the News pages every so often. Another example of how painless
the whole process was.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:41:31 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:23:04 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:10:48 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:48:12 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So how would the Steam approach worked in the same situation, if BF2
>>>had been a Steam game? Does Steam make its games immune to problems in
>>>patches, and does it somehow make it possible to revert back to old
>>>patch/original installation without having to reinstall the game or
>>>reverting to earlier backups of the game? It doesn't.
>>
>>In the early days of HL2 a patch was issued then within a day or two
>>revoked, all I had to do was wait a couple of minutes while Steam took
>>care of everything, never having to worry about what was happening
>>under the hood.
>
>Sure, not having to worry about the 50 Meg or so of download to
>unfix the broken patch. Nice to have unmetered broadband.

This seems to be the real issue here. Sooner or later everyone is going to
have broadband and then these kinds of arguments will be done and dusted. If
the updates were say <1MB guaranteed all the time, by some miracle, would you
still find it inconvenient?
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:47:32 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:48:12 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:24:10 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:01:40 +0200, Werner Spahl
>><spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>>
>>>This could be good but it could also be bad. Is it only me, or do others
>>>here have the impressing too, that Valve is constantly fixing something,
>>>sometimes even reverting changes, instead of releasing a few well tested
>>>patches that make everything right. Which version number has HL2 now ;) ?
>>
>>Like EA did with BF2? Sorry guys we screwed up the patch, please
>>uninstall the game then reinstall it back to the original version.
>>Given the choice, as I am on broadband, I much prefer the Steam
>>approach.
>
>So how would the Steam approach worked in the same situation, if BF2
>had been a Steam game? Does Steam make its games immune to problems in
>patches, and does it somehow make it possible to revert back to old
>patch/original installation without having to reinstall the game or
>reverting to earlier backups of the game? It doesn't.

It does but it is handled by Valve and has already happened before. A Steam
update was released which had some apparent problems so another update was
released which reverted the changes. The user who didn't read the News pages
for changes would never have even known it had happened.

>Before you say it is easy to use an older Steam game backup in case
>something goes wrong with the update... how many times have you backed
>up your HL2 Steam folder before a scheduled incoming update, hmmm?

>Just a few days ago I read in another forum complaints from a HL2
>owner who was having "memory problems" with the newer Steam/HL2
>patches, and he needed to know what is the easiest way to revert back
>to old HL2 installation without any patches, where the problem does
>not appear. For some reason Steam kept switching auto-update back on
>for him...
July 12, 2005 1:49:49 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:41:31 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:


>This seems to be the real issue here. Sooner or later everyone is going to
>have broadband and then these kinds of arguments will be done and dusted. If
>the updates were say <1MB guaranteed all the time, by some miracle, would you
>still find it inconvenient?

Just having broadband doesn't mean you have freedom to download as
much data as you please. Most broadband ISP's limit how much data you
can download per month.
July 12, 2005 2:37:32 AM

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

"MB" <nospam@please.net> wrote:
> So, why do others hate Steam?

Just know that Hulk is getting very angry right now, and the more Hulk is
downloading, the less Hulk can play. Steam just showed me a message where
it says:

"Ready to play in approximately 8117 minutes and 44 seconds"

And I'm not joking either.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:37:33 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:37:32 +0300, "Hulk" <Hulk@100TONS.spam> wrote:

>
>"MB" <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>> So, why do others hate Steam?
>
>Just know that Hulk is getting very angry right now, and the more Hulk is
>downloading, the less Hulk can play. Steam just showed me a message where
>it says:
>
>"Ready to play in approximately 8117 minutes and 44 seconds"
>
>And I'm not joking either.

What connection are you on? Telegraph?
July 12, 2005 2:39:00 AM

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

MB <nospam@please.net> wrote in news:9oo3d11sfjka3o3l872327onmi3g2gv1ah@
4ax.com:

> Please keep the thread civil and absent of flaming.

LOL, good luck with that.


stePH
--
"Let me guess -- my theories appall you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
-- The Doctor
July 12, 2005 2:39:43 AM

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

john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote in news:42d29331.10502007
@news.verizon.net:

> M$$$ is likely to be around long after Valve and Steam have vaporized.

Steam, by definition, is already vaporized.


stePH
--
"Let me guess -- my theories appall you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
-- The Doctor
!