First one hit post limit.

From the last thread, it seems the main issues people have with Steam are:

Trust Issues. Some people would prefer to have a physical form of the game, one that is safe and not in someone else's hands. This is a valid argument. But understand, Valve is at the forefront of PC game development. They will not sell your information. They won't shut down Steam, making your games unplayable. If they did, Valve has said many a time how if Steam was to go offline, they would release a patch that would effectively make all your games on Steam non-Steam-dependent. Now, I suppose you have to trust Valve a small bit. I admit they could just not release said patch. But why would they not? They wouldn't lose any money.

Internet Problems. Some have a rather sub-par internet connection, making Steam game access rather sporadic. This is also a valid argument. But offline mode exists for a reason. One can play games without any internet connection required.

Did I miss anything?

I'm going to go ahead and say, while I am not someone who believes there is anything wrong with steam, the consolation to your first point is rather weak Destruction is Fun!

If Valve were to go out of business and suddenly the service would fail, the question isn't: Why wouldn't they release the patch, because it wont cost them anything. I think the real question would be: Why would they release the patch, they are out of business, it's no longer anyone's problem. Them being a modern corporation, the interests of the company do not mirror the interests of the individuals.

This is a rather callous way of looking at it, but non-the-less applicable.


That said, the arguement for weak internet connections is one that has always bothered me. You can get a stable internet connection at McDonalds. Everyone has issues with their ISP, but often this doesn't mean a once a week thing, where your out of internet for days at a time. I have an issue myself about once a year, that is solved in under a day. I get an issue about once a yearly quarter, where the issue is solved in under an hour (Often because of maintenance on the part of my ISP.) I don't live in a big city, infact I live in a town of under 1000 people that often has issues with natural forces effecting the power/communication lines in this area. Yet, still the issues with my ISP aren't numerous.

The nearby town of 100k people, regularly have issues with Comcast, which is one of the big providers for that town. Most of the people I have talked to, have similar issues to me (In terms of how long it takes to solve the problem) occurring with about twice as much frequency.

I know people who live in far more remote areas who have stable connections with Comcast as an ISP though, so the problem in the nearby town seems more of an issue with their grid, not as much an issue with the service as a whole.

It just isn't that difficult to get yourself a connection, it is a difficult justification to swallow.

Now, there were issues with the Offline mode until recently... but it's just that, there were issues until Recently. By my understanding, it has been fixed now. So, as is said above: You only need your internet for activation purposes, after that run it offline and you'll be fine. If your posting up here to complain about Steam... you obviously have that capability.

yes, some of us don't have the the connection speed Steam really need

For many people Steam is a good thing but for others it's not.

Steam truly requires more than a paltry connection as it doesn't only activate a title, Steam also forces the initial patching which I've heard even the zero-day patch was about 200 megs for Skyrim.So for me I can go into a store with enough money, see it on the shelf & know that that it is safely secured from me on a server under steam control

Please check my sig to understand more on why some Beth fans have issues with Steam

I've stoped buying disk software of anykind. My next PC probably won't even have an optical drive unless I decide to get a notebook and use it for my BluRay/DVD/Netflix device.

That's what all those banks, insurance companies and telephone companies keep telling us.


When trying to make me buy a bond, that guy said Lehman Brothers won't go bankrupt unless it's the end of the world.


But still, I seldom buy or not buy a game only because of Steam. Steam is just one of the factors that I may consider.

If they ever drop support for a game or take the activation servers offline the issue won't be that "they wouldn't lose any money". Making such a patch costs money, distributing such a patch costs money, continued support for users of such a patch costs money. Nothing in this world is for free.

There are many possible reasons why this could happen. Valve could be taken over by another company, and with takeovers you're not always guaranteed on continued service of "previous" products. Valve could drop support for some games when those have far exceeded their economical lifespan, and releasing a patch per game might very well no be economically viable. A promise is just a promise, it's not legally binding. Valve has actually put in their EULA that they may drop support at any time whenever they wish, so it's a distinct possibility they might because otherwise they'd have no need to put that in their EULA. Furthermore Valve could suffer malfunctions/corruptions in their activation servers or user database, and there's always a distinct possibility of Steam account theft. All of this would mean you'd be unable to install/play your legally purchased games, without needing to resort to cracks for your legal purchases that is.

Don't get me wrong. I have bought games on Steam. Valve has a very nice assortment of games on their Steam store, they have nice discounts, and they have nice trial periods to try out full versions of games. I'm also very fond of their pretty large assortment of indie-games. But... I strongly disagree with Steam being mandatory on retail versions of games. If I buy a retail version of a game I'm not looking to buy a steamified game, If I were I would buy it on Steam.

I think many people have an issue on being dependent on a third party to enjoy their legally purchased games. (<- retail games)
Particularly in a corporate world where customer satisfaction is only important as long as it's beneficial to corporate revenue.


Patching is an issue. Steam will only allow patching up to the very latest patch version of a game. And patching up to the latest version isn't always the best way to go. Take mods in mind which aren't always compatible with certain patch versions, or take the fact in mind that sometimes patches can break things worse then what they're supposed to fix.

But patches aren't forced on you. You can effectively deactivate auto-updates.

And then only play the unpatched version???

The issue is with patch versions. Not with patching yes/no.

Thats fine and dandy, id do the same, but still dont what to be forced to run this steam program before I can run the program I paid for.

That means if I use steam or what ever to buy and DL a game , after that were are done get it.

I fail to see the connection between Valve and banks, phone companies, etc. I haven't gotten calls from people and businesses I don't know, nor email spam. I'm very confident that Valve is not going to sell my information.

As for your second point, you ignored the fact that I said that if Valve did go under, they would release a patch making all Steam games not dependent on said platform.



I was under the knowledge that said patch has already been made. Distribution costs would be rather minimal. And what's this "continued support" stuff? All Steam users auto-download the patch. Steam servers & stores then go offline. Thus, no one would need to download the patch at a later date. Although you make a valid point about corporation buy-outs.

I also do, in fact, agree that Steam should not be mandatory. That wasn't a very good idea. One should be able to choose how he uses a product.

When is a DRM mechanic ever "optional"? Unless you're pirating, of course.

I will believe it when they write it into a contract with me. Until such time, they can claim they will all the want, but they are under no obligation to do so. And I'm not going to put my faith in that.

This after hearing people tell me time and again that steam would release a patch to fix our steam games if they went down, i decided to read their contract and NOTHING forces them to fix anything. They could cut and run and leave everyone high and dry without even saying `sorry`. It`s happened with other companies before... Which brings me to...


The similarity is in how many companies have failed to keep their promises once a customer has invested in them when things failed. We know of people still trying to get their money back from failed policies (just watch the adverts, many lawyers are benefiting from this by appealing to people who lost out). It`s taking customers YEARS to get their money back from BANKS.

What chance has a gamer for a computer game. Steam knows this, game publishers know this, but it seems just the gamer can`t see this.

But this is not the only issue. Internet issues and just the basic freedom to play your game or use what patch you most like are all a part of the problem with Steam. I also believe strongly against in putting all my eggs in one basket (I suppose few know of this tale) where ONE organisation can, if they ever so wish, say to me `We don`t think you should play our games any more; so we won`t let you!`

It`s just common sense really.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1341379-cant-play-a-non-online-game-i-payed-for/

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/11/valve-confirms-steam-hack-credit-cards-personal-info-may-be-stolen.ars

Too be honest anyone who is paranoid of their information being sold/leaked is clueless on how easy it is to get information, Large Networks will be targeted either it be Steam, Xbox live, Origin, PSN, Windows live, Capsule, Facebook, Twitter, etc and people will get passed the protections against "hackers" and even make it to the point they get air time unless the network respective owners covers it up enough.

So saying "I won't use steam because my information may be given out" only stands ups if you don't use ANY online network that even including forums such as these.

Now a true reason that I do support is the fact that not everyone has decent internet access because the infrastructure of the majority of the countries mainly UK, Europe, US, Canada, the ones that hold the main market for gaming, does not have their infrastructure built good enough to allow such. A decent infrastructure would also mean no GB cap from the current ISP in your country.

Now Later about 10 years (hopeful) most likely 20 years I wouldn't be surprised if all of gaming went digital. Hell if cloud gaming does get built upon now that will be a excellent replacement but that would effect MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc because cloud gaming = no need for a new generation. So I am sure those companies will put up a pretty big fight to stop that and will succeed most likely. But even then MS and Sony have alternative income other then the consoles.

Another yet horrible excuse for not using any digital market is "I don't have a physical copy of it therefor do not own it" is hilariously stupid.. most sites including steam allows you to install all of the game information on to a HD even disk or other device.

Now with those 3 reasons said I for one do not support steam integration OTHER then Valve titles and Indie titles any other publisher should either come up with their own system or no system having the OPTION to buy through steam or other sites should be available. EA even though bashed constantly for it created Origin which I applaud them for doing so it is not a 3rd party site it is made for EA titles by EA. Even before origin EA had their own system that was a limit on how many times you can install your game which via DRM which NEVER should be a issue. 1. you had like 10 installs default 2. If you happen to run out you can call EA support and have them refreshed. But re installing a game 10 times is USER error there is absolutely no reason why you should do that. Bad HDs are not common not to the point of you going through 10 changes. Complete system redos are mainly due too the user going to unprotected/unsafe sites getting various viruses and trojans. And if your going through 10 PCs your not exactly able to talk because I am sure you can buy a new copy with that amount of cash.

Steam won't go down.. Hat Fortress 2 alone makes enough cash to keep it up and running let alone any other game out there. And steam itself is not a monopoly of the digital market it is shared by various sites Steam is the largest but that is like saying Intel a monopoly of the CPU market.

Last but not least do not look down upon steam for Bethesda decision on using it, if you were Valve and you were asked to host a game getting a fraction of a competitors cash due to it would you? Hell yes you would. Steam is a serviced offered to game developers/publishers that has a cost to it Valve did not ask for Bethesda to be steam integrated Bethesda decided to be.

Probably still a good idea not to have Steam save your credit card numbers. And I don`t let my card go near any of those others except my bank, which interestingly, has never been hacked.


How can you in any possible Human way know that Steam won`t go down? Even financial investors screw things up and banks have gone down.


And what happened to the customer? They were forgotten for the cash I guess. They didn`t appreciate our thanks and cash for NOT using Steam. I suppose people like me who actually thanked them were not enough. Sometimes, it`s what you do for the customer that counts than how much money you can squeeze out of them and FORCING them into digital chains while cutting out all the people unable or unwilling to use it is a pretty underhanded way of doing it.

Also, why this psycophantic love of Steam? Why can`t you understand we just want the CHOICE NOT to use it. Let those who love it, like you, have it, and those who don`t- NOT.

Is this not a Democracy? Are we not allowed choice to play our games with or without steam without resorting to Piracy?

"Are people not buying this game just because of Steam?"

For any other game, I would definitely not have bought it, simply because of Steam. In fact, actually I didn't realize the game used Steam, what I mean is I would have sent it back, took it back to the store if it wasn't TES.

I pre-ordered Skyrim online at newegg, and it never mentioned Steam, AFAIK. Shipping it back, or bend over. Well, this is my favorite game series, so I bent over.

I bought Half-Life 2, in 2004, and it was a [censored] nightmare. It has always been a [censored] nightmare for me. I never bought another Steam game. I despise Steam more than any other software, even viruses and malware are better, IMO.

That's right, I'd rather install a [censored] virus. At least that way I can eventually uninstall it, and play Skyrim without being hassled about being offline every time I launch the game. Or going online, only to find I can't play the game again, if my internet goes out. Or it downloads some patch that breaks all my mods and crap. [censored] Steam and their data collection, advertisemant bloat engine.

"our accounts were stolen" (or, you sold them?). The source code to HL2 was stolen. You trust them with your financial information? Well, accounts were hacked like the month Skyrim came out. Lol.

Now I get harrased by Skyrim too when I'm offline. There's this thing that keeps popping up about "failed to enumerate". Yeah, you failed, because I'm [censored] OFFLINE.

You left out 'paranoia' and 'resistance to change'.


"Is this not a Democracy? Are we not allowed choice to play our games with or without steam without resorting to Piracy?"


Democracy is a political concept, not an economic philosophy. Don't make the mistake of thinking 'democracy' let's you do what you like...it doesn't...what you are actually thinking of is 'anarchy'.

But in relation to intellectual property and programming, no, you can't do what you like, or what you choose...you can only do what the EULA licences you to do, within the limitation of that EULA. And in the case of Skyrim, that EULA required those on PC to play the game via Steam, a requirement that was stated on the game packaging or on the game's purchase page on various download sites.

That is a silly question to ask on the game forum. Anyway:
- With no prior experience of Steam, I did buy this game, not to prejudiced.
- Now that I have the experience, I won't buy the next one -> Problem solved, simple enough.

Only the free market makes statements, that have any significance. Complaining, propagandizing, or name calling (be it "lovers" or "haters") is just immature and pointless.

I think steam haters are just stupid. If a game is NOT on steam i will have less chance of buying it. Steam repairs my games if files are missing and have helped me in so many ways. One of my games would not run cause a file was missing, I validated cache and done.

Some people just want skyrim on Origin I guess

My accounts for Zappos, Twitter and tumblr have been hacked, too. Am I supposed to never use them again?

I bought a disc copy of Assassin's Creed II and the authentication code had been hacked. I was out the cash since I couldn't take an opened software product back to the store, and good luck wtih Ubisoft customer service.

Whatever risk you're taking with Valve, the number of satisfied customers who use Steam as their main digital platform makes all this hysteria look pretty silly. You don't even have to buy the game through Steam, just authenticate and update through it, so if you don't want to buy games from an "unreliable" vendor then no one says you have to. I've bought incredible games for dirt cheap, so if Valve implodes, I'm still out less than if I bought a disc and spilled coffee on it.

The gaming industry will take physical media from my cold, dead hands. At least I got a retail copy of Skyrim, even if I do take it in the butt from Steam every time I want to play.



I'm oldest school. Soon, I'll be dead, then I won't care.

I don't care for physical media and I've been using Steam since 2005. Had my share of issues, but the benefits far outweights them.

The last game I bought on physical media was Dragon Age: Origins, back in 2009.

I'd believe it if it's written into the contract they have with every single game studio that has a Steam title. Would it not be breach if they patched away Steam's drm? (That's effectively what it is.)

When it's GoG.
*Not only did they release Witcher 2 without DRM, but I've read that the DRM on other vendor's release of the game was found to be a major cause of poor frame-rates; and the game improved when the DRM was removed in the patch.

except for the fact that steam resets your settings anytime it updates, so even if you have it set not to update, they release a new steam update as well as a game update and it startsd to download the update before you can react. (Has happened to me twice.)