Well i've played the game for a while now, and its pretty awesome. It's even worth it to hassle with steam. But ppl saying steam is the greates thing ever, have you played MW: 2? look at how that game works with steam and tell me its not a piece of ****. Part the developers fault for choosing to use steam ofc...

IMO this thread shows why Steamworks is bad at least for this community. it's dividing us, fracturing the fanbase. we need a solution without alienating a portion of the loyal customers. I'm not saying Steam should not be an option, it's just that it should not be the only one because if there is only one option there really are none. After all we are all gamers here console & PC user, Broadband user & dial-uppers. we are all different but we are here for the same reason ultimately to enjoy the love of gaming.

*steps down from the soapbox*

I use steam.....steam for me has been a pleasure...no problems...no glitches.. but i can see how problems with Steam would affect a persons perspective.

The future is always scary/painful. I do see this to be the way things are going. I would love to go back to the days of DOS and just install a game and enjoy it but, as technology (and its abusers) grows, so must the security companies apply to protect their product from Arrrrrr pirates. Just like cheap gas, non-invasive-DRM games will soon be something to reminisce about to our grandchildren...

just my opinion though.....

Seriously? A pleasure? You mean it actually enhanced your experiences to a point that was the extreme end of pleasing? I suspect what you really mean is that you use Steam and it doesn't annoy you. Wich is a vastly different experience to "pleasure".



The problem for me is that the past (wrt Steam) was very, very painful. To the point I don't trust the future. This is a big straw man to claim those of us who are against mandatory Steam use are somehow luddites who need to "get with the program" and to be honest using this argument really does diminsh the validity of the rest of your point. Which is a shame because the rest seems, on face value at least, to be well thought out. But seriously diminished by this unfortunate ad-hom.




I have no problem with this, and the internet is surely a big contributor to piracy and lost revenues, however things like Steam are serious overkill. I should not have to install any extra stuff in order to prove that I have the right to play a game I have bought on DVD. A simple web based authentication process would acheive the same result and be far less intrusive. Actually it would not be intrusive (as such) at all.

You see, I like to control what I install on my computer. Because, until the government changes the laws, it is still my computer. Now, I know I have a choice - if I want to play a Steam protected game I must install Steam and abide by all the extra rules, regulations, risks and so forth that comes with doing so. But that is the point. I have chosen not to buy FO:NV mainly on the basis of the Steam requirements. I returned Mount and Blade:Warband for a refund on the same basis, and if you look at the forums relating to that game you see a progression from a lot of annoyed people through many refusals to purchase and returns to vendor culminating with an updated version of the game that no longer requires Steam. Which negates the point of insisting on Steam in the first place and surely either inflates the cost of the game or reduces teh revenue to the rights holders.

I am well aware that individually my refusal to buy FO:NV is unlikely to make the difference between profit and loss for the companies involved but if you look around the internet (or just this forum) you see I am not alone. And ultimately if I don't buy FO:NV then the result to me is simply that I don't play a game I didn't play before I chose not to buy it. However to Bethesda / Valve / Obsidian it represents lost revenue.

Which is ironic because the majority of pirates wouldn't buy the game anyway so although it is true to argue piracy damages the industry it is also true that incidents of piracy do not necessarily directly corelate to lost revenue, whereas implementing Steam DRM to combat piracy certainly does result in lost revenue (as people like me don't buy the game). Maybe the declining profits in the IP industries are at least in part related to alienation of prospective buyers as well as increases in illegal copyright abuse. Just a thought.



Which is a really, really sad thing. And people like you (no offense) are the reason this will be true. No honest person argues against the need to reduce IP infringement and ensure that IP rights holders receive both a reasonable return for their investments and the right to control distribution but to grease yourself up and willingly bend over the desk with respects to the "invasive" part of DRM is frankly beyond belief. A company that is capable of writing a complex game such as this is surely capable of creating and handling an on-line database that accepts standards based input and ensures that games are reasonably registered with no requirement for "invasive" software or procedures at all.

Steam can be good for some people, and bad for others. For me, it's good.

No matter what they do you will never be happy. People complained about Games for Windows Live and now they are complaining about Steam. I could honestly care less which it uses. I liked GFWL because I could earn achievements on my Live account like on the Xbox, I like Steam because I don't need the disc ever again.

Either accept the fact that it's there and will never change or Please continue, my good sir..

Lol you can't say shut the uh up or it puts (Please continue, my good sir.)

If you say it will never change, then it will indeed not change. But if you call ppl on their bull**** once in a while it might make a difference some day.

I use steam to but it's always been a pain for me to download updates. as to the privacy issue I sure as hell don't want anything knowing what I have installed on my computer.



I find that to be very intrusive.

I am a converted Steam skeptic. The pros far out weigh the cons to me, but that isn't really the point is it? The people who hate it want freedom to do what they want and not forced into a PC sub-platform. I think everyone can understand that.

If we have to have DRM in PC games then I would choose Steam over anything else. Steam isn't intrusive, it doesn't limit you, it automatically updates your games for you and they offer great deals on games.

I can understand not liking it if you have dial-up, but most people have moved on to high-speed internet (I realize it is not available everywhere yet), so they are catering the majority of people. I get 2mb/s download through my home connection and I have seen it as high as 10mb/s at other places.

Not true. My account was hijacked, and I have it back to me working just like normal. Just made a quick phone call and explained the situation, and it was all taken care of.

For me, the problem is this. Unless I know that I'm going to be offline for a given amount of time, I cannot set my steam to offline without first logging in. So, if my internet goes down by surprise, or Steam goes down by surprise (happened like 2 weeks ago), or if I'm unable to log into Steam for some reason, I cannot play this game.

You cannot set Steam to offline mode when you're not logged in online. If you manage to find a way, and Steam finds out about it, apparently they update Steam to disallow that technique.

These two things combined means I can never be even 75% sure that I can play Fallout today, or any time, for that matter. That's not good enough. And it's not just my PC I'm talking about, for everyone I know and game with on steam, that's the case.

Additionally, and perhaps this shouldn't happen (could be a bug, who knows)... but when I go on navy deployment, and I set my Steam for work offline, if I have any tiny little error on my PC with Steam or something, it has a good chance of forgetting that it's in offline mode; and boom, game gone. If my PC crashes, the install becomes corrupt, I could be unable to play that game for months.

Why should we have to chose between one unacceptable, intrusive method of proving we are not thieves and another equally unacceptable and intrusive method?

Many other systems require online activation but without the need to install any additional software - either it is done through an internal connection system or over the browser of your choice.

I also didn't like GFWL - it was intrusive, buggy and I care nothing about achievements. Maybe it is because I am from a generation where bragging on the internet about how many baddies you killed or what level you reached in a game is not important to me. I do not think that the pros of Steam are sufficient to offset the cons - your mileage is clearly different but that does not necessarily make you right and me wrong about Steam - just as none of this makes me right and you wrong.

However what I would really like is a degree of choice - surely this is not outside the capabilities of the companies we are discussing here?

I do like, however your contradictory statements:



coupled with:


So it would never change that Obsidian wil use GFWL. But now they changed to use Steam. Which will never change. Until it changes. But then that will never change. etc. etc.

I am "please continuing" here, but I, along with others are showing why we are continuing to not purchase FO:NV - and we are the ones that want to change the situation by pointing this out, many more people will just see it requires Steam so buy something else instead, which results in fewer sales and accordingly less profit to be invested in the next game.

I take Steam over Ubisoft's crap any day of the year.

I love Steam simply because even newly released games are cheaper than in box form - denmark here btw.
Been using steam pretty much since it was released (once i got over my fear of online shopping) and i've never had any problems with my games.
On top of this you get every update handed to you (eventually anyway) + DLCs are easilly bought aswell.

Piracy is so bad for PC so in order for you to be able to play a game on PC i.e. the publisher to make a PC version your going to have to use Steam

fairly simple.

Steam = mainstream PC gaming

mainstream PC gaming = more people

more people =more $$$$$ (or ￡￡￡￡/€€€€€€) = profit.

True, Ubisoft is making so that you have to maintain a constant connection to the internet in order to play.



Its not gonna get better, only worse. It only stops piracy for a few hours to a week. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a pirated copy available right now.

Which is as useful as saying "I take a punch in the face over a kick in the testicles any day of the year".

Indeed, when I first got into PC gaming, I never needed to use something like Steam, I just needed to install the game, and then I could play whenever I want it, and then suddenly these "services" come along with lots of features, most of which I'll never use, and try to force themselves on my whether I want them or not. When I buy a game, I just want the game, I don't need Steam or anything else like that as well, and I'd even be fine with a Steam version of the game if I didn't have to use it if I don't buy the game through Steam, yet I'm not given a choice, I have to either use Steam, or play the game on the Xbox 360, and since this is a game I'd only consider playing on PC, I'd say that's really not a choice at all.

Now, Steam won't stop me from playing the game, I still intend to get it when I can, I want to play the game too much to let Steam stop me, but I'm definately not going to for one moment let Bethesda or Obsidian think I approve of their decision use Steam, after all, they might decide to use a different method in future games if we make it clear we don't like their current approach. After all, they still need to make money, and that will be easier if their customers don't dissapprove of their business practices.



Indeed. Just because something I don't want is slightly better than something I do want doesn't mean I'll be satisfied with it, what I want is to need to suffer through neither of the things I don't want. And it's not like we HAD to choose between the two, I've played lots of games on the PC which use neither software, some of which are pretty recent, so if those games don't need to use Steam, there's no logical reason why this game should. And the same goes for "At least i's better than Games for Windows Live", a statement I don't even agree with, maybe for some games, it is, but for Fallout 3, I could safely ignore the existence of Games for Windows Live if I wanted to, and I did, I never got what the fuss was about it, honestly, since it never effected my gaming experience, on the other hand, I can't say the game for Steam. I'm always reminded of its existence when I use it.



That makes no sense, since playing a game without Steam does not require anything that playing it WITH Steam wouldn't, therefore, making the game not require Steam would not count out any potential customers, if anything, it would allow more customers to play the game since people who can't use Steam, say... due to not having an internet connection on their computer, or don't want to use it, could still play the game. Besides, there's no reason they can't just release a Steam version but make the store bought copies not require it, you know, the thing that would MAKE SENSE.

If they really want our money that much, then maybe they should consider doing what customers want them to do, they might be more inclined to actually buy the game if I said so, and though I might not be an expert in economics, I am a customer.



Except not all games use Steam and they still do fine, and Steam still doesn't stop piracy. And maybe if developers are so worried about piracy, instead of adding software to the game that doesn't actually stop piracy and just makes things more troublesome for the paying customers, thereby making them want to buy the game LESS, they should make it so players actually have a reason to choose to buy the game instead of pirating it, but we can't have that, after all, every single player in existence is an evil criminal who will stop at nothing to pirate the game unless it's made utterly inpossible to do so, while making it so hard to play it legally that no one wants to buy it, or at least, that's what developers seem to think. Maybe people would be more inclined to support developers if they stopped treating them all like criminals.



Then they're sadly mistaken, the best, least intrusive experience would be if, once I install the game, I don't need to worry about activating it through Steam or online or anything like that, if they want to provide the best, least intrusive experience for PC gamers, then they should not use Steam, Securom, or any other form of intrusive DRM, just let as install the game and play it, for the least intrusive experience possible, I'd say even no disc check would be ideal, but I think just inserting the disc to play the game would likely be the best we could hope for.

I saw a few posts about consoles as an escape from Steamworks, just to note Steamworks is coming to consoles as well.

Just something to consider.

I myself consider Steam to be a good all-around compromise with publishers. It lets me install anywhere, anytime, as many times as I wish without a disk and I really like all the features it provides. With the offline mode, I don't really have any objections as I do with say, Ubisofts method (kicks you out of your game if your connection falters).

I don't know I still say being a PC gamer and having internet goes hand & hand

From my experience I have never had problems with Steam it's very simple easy tool to use and launch games
If need be get patches updates etc. with ease

There are a number of issues here , which it seems the pro-Steam lobby are either unwilling or unable to separate.

The first issue is regarding activation of software. Most of us agree this is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is done in an unobtrusive manner. We understand piracy is bad and can see how it affects the industry which in turn affects the quality and quantity of games that will be produced along with the unit cost for each game that is created.

The second issue is regarding on-line activation. Most of us do not have a problem with this. As you say we generally have internet access and we can see this as a fairly simple yet elegant method to reduce casual piracy at the least. However, as a number of people have pointed out - not everyone has a reliable internet connection. You may say being a PC gamer and having internet goes hand in hand but clearly you are not correct in every case. Even Microsoft allow you to activate software over the phone if you can't or won't activate on-line.

The third issue is forcing us to use a third party tool to activate the game on-line. This is what most of us are having a problem with. We don't want to install extra bloat just to prove we haven't stolen something.

Some ppl in here seem to be thinking that DRM is preventing piracy, when in fact, its pretty much because of DRM there still is rampant piracy of games. Just get rid of it and games would most likely sell alot better. And its not like the DRM is effective in anyway. The games usually comes first as an illegal copy on different torrent sites b4 its even released. Piracy will always be there, it can not be stopped. Where theres a will there is a way.