I would guess that maybe the Steam client has received an update and that the setting got over written...

Showler had a link to the gamesas blogpost that had the changelog. In the comment section he answer to the question which team had pulled the patch for further checking 'the Bethesda/Obsidian team'.

http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/12/10/new-vegas-game-update-available-on-playstation-3-will-be-on-xbox-360-steam-next-week/

It's all about individual premises, those who like Steam just like those who dislike it does so because it fits or not their own tastes. Or you think those who like Steam does so because Steam cause some higher good around the globe? Like stopping floods somewhere in Southern Asia?

It can do that! Think of all the trees that get saved by not having a box and a manual and a receipt!

:hubbahubba:

Speaking only for myself, not being able to control patching isn't about placing blame on anyone....it's about option. I am used to single-player games where I could control what patch I wanted to play a game with. Maybe I felt like playing with a Diablo2 Sorceress before patch #12345, so I install the game and only patch it to #123. Maybe on another PC I'll install Diablo2 with patch #1234567 so I can switch between a few different version of the game any time I want. Easy-peasy.

Steam makes this sort of option a big pain in the ass to do for the average consumer. Obviously FNV has a nice editor so I (personally) can go in and tweak many things back if I wish, but that's not the point. Not all games have editors. Steam's enforced patching takes away CHOICE.

Wow, so much people having problems with Steam o.O

That's reasonably possible for some people. I don't go "online" very often (only if I hear a patch is available). However I have gone online/offline repeatedly in order to test it, and it reset itself every time. No updates, no downloading of anything I could see. It just acts like going into offline mode negates the setting, and since you must be online in order to set, when I log online I can't switch it back before it starts downloading stuff.

I agree that it is not about placing "blame" yet people cite "keeps your games up to date" as a reason they don't like Steam.

This is not a "problem", and it wasn't Steam that removed the choice; it was Bethesda by using Steam as a platform.

Steam is functioning "as advertised" and is "working as intended" when it patches games. But lets call a spade a spade, Steam is not the cause of the problem.

Additionally, I do not believe New Vegas was distributed on Steam to make it "more enjoyable". It was to facilitate patching and distribution and as DRM.

I would have no big issue with Steam in its current incarnation if the 'don't update' option actually worked for me. I still do not like Steam/direct-download-only, conceptually, (because I'm an old-fashioned old fart) and would/will choose to use it only when I have to in order to play a game I truly want, but that's a different subject entirely and is certainly not Steam-specific.

No doubt. I'm an old fart too, I like having the media. That said, Steam is a great way to gift games to friends, and the least problematic of the DRM solutions out there.

Unfortunately that Steam download probably causes several times more trees to be cut than plastic box and manual. Internet needs heaps of energy to run. And I don't think just optic cables and hardware but all that electricity as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDqXZl98CM.

So, what you are saying is, combining an unstable thirdparty software package, with an unstable game, is a 'good thing'?? Sorry, I don't see it that way. I do NOT want to be REQUIRED to install third party software, to play a single player game. Steam offers me absolutely zero advantages to my playing experience. I don't WANT to interact with the community while playing my SINGLE PLAYER game. I don't NEED the other doodads that steam 'enables' me to do, at the expense of game stability. I didn't buy the game, left to my own devices, I still would not have it. My son gave it to me, and that is the ONLY reason it is on my machine. I will not spend my money to support a philosophy I believe is detrimental to my gaming experience.

For me this is just the opposite. I REALLY hate digital only titles. I wont purchase a game unless I get a disk for installs. I perform a HDD format and purge every 6 to 9 months and redownloading all of my multi-gigabyte games is just a huge hassle. Plus why would I pay the exact same amount of money (or even more on some occassions) for digital only when I could go and get a physical object and maybe pre-order swag as well? Don't get me wrong I am not trying to claim that everyone should do what I do but I can't back a system of further price gouging.

For my part I actually like Steam. It has a good deal of the games that I like and ensures that I always have access to my games. I mainly use it for L4D and L4D2 but I bought the physical disks for those.

We are not debating whether or not they should have put steam in the game, because that is like 2 ants debating where the next skyscraqer should be built, our opinions are inconsequential in the bigger picture. What I am saying is that now that steam is already here and in your game, enjoy the benefits steam does offer you instead of just being angry at it. We will never go back to the days where steam was not a major player in the gaming world, so you might as well adapt to it and make the best of a (possibly) bad situation.

Personally I use steam as both a downloading service for my games and a community I can grow into for my multiplayer games. The annoyance of steam (as much as I love steam there are problems with it, like release date server overloads) is more than made up for by its crazy sales.
300 dollars worth of games for 50 dollars? Yes Please!

You are completely wrong on this. Games are made for users to play. Us to play. If we complain, than there is actually chance somebody will see it, take note and next Fallout will not use Steam exclusively. And more people complain, larger the chance somebody will make a note.

If we would not complain and discus ineffectiveness of EWs in Vegas, we would not get patch which tries to fix it.
Its that simple.

If Steam was a good service or not its depend of who are using it, some people never had problem with it, some people yes,

Personally i never had problem with them, neither with the Updates, (specially the Valve Games)

Just so we are clear, people did complain about the DRM of FO3, and the community railed them for not using steam. I highly doubt they'll go back to GFWL considering how quickly developers are abandoning ship for that platform.

The vast majority of people prefer steam as their DRM than any other form. So yes the players voice is heard, unfortunately yours is the minority.

I feel your pain on that one. A few years back my wife got me a complete TV series on DVD (Seasons one through whatever) for Christmas, but it was for a show that I didn't really like. I decided that returning them was better than leaving them unopened on the shelf and unopened, sort of like ripping the band-aid off really fast. I felt bad about it, even worse when I discovered that she had to go to a couple of different stores to find every season, and that beautiful woman has not bought me a single present since. I have gone out of my way to make sure that nobody even knows that I know what New Vegas is, because I don't want to have to go through that again.

GFWL could be removed completely after verification and after some patches. IIRC the patches reinstalled GFWL which only needed to be there for the patch. Once it was installed you could delete it. And the best DRM is a simple CD check. The vast majority of people simply [censored]ed about GFWL. Steam is a "service" and should be treated as such. And simply adding yet another login and password to the multitudes I already have is a "disservice". Especially for a single player game that isn't even capable of miltiplayer in any way shape or form. And I still haven't been able to collect my preorder bonus. FRACK'EM

I just wanted to clarify: it is not possible (without cracks and hacks) to play Fallout New Vegas unless you have an active Steam account, login to Steam and validate the game, and then remain logged in at all times unless you use the "offline mode," correct?

In short, Fallout New Vegas _requires_ Steam, correct?

I understand fully why this sort of thing is happening in gaming, and can see how, from both the developer, publisher, and distributors perspectives it appears to be "progress." I can even understand how from the standpoint of some consumers it also seems to be "progress."

From my standpoint, it appears to be intrusive, bordering on a breach of reasonable terms of fair use, not to mention an unwarranted hassle. It is anolagous to the bookstore telling me, "No sorry. You don't have the right to read that book you just paid for a license to use. You see, you don't actually "own" it, and cannot take it out of the store. If you actually want to read it, you need to sit here in the proprietars coffee shop . . ."

1. as far as I'm aware the 'anti-piracy' aspect of Steam is fallacious, apparently most Steam games are cracked nearly as soon as they are released. If Steam really does reduce shrinkage, my guess is that it is primarily a result of pricing, availability, and selection, not from restrictions such as required networking or online validation processes. 2. digital distribution does not necessitate a system like Steamworks, which by default wants a user to be logged in, and to submit to all patches when it deems them timely. 3. My understanding is that the "offline mode" is problematic at times, to say nothing of the problematic nature of auto-updates, and interrupted networking, or users with slow connections. 4. Plenty of games still use CD keys which tells me, they work. If they did not work, they would've been abandoned long ago.

Producers of intellectual property might like to dream about zero shrinkage, and have themselves convinced that Steam will lead to such a promised land. But other factors are, in my experience with various publishers online communities, likely to have more reliable and significant effects. Namely: cordial gamer-developer community dynamics, i.e., "good customer support;" pricing; company/brand image; availability. Steam certainly has pricing and availability readily at hand, but as far as I can tell, they are still about as warm and friendly to their users as a prison guard is to the inmates, and their customer support svcks. I do not predict that Steam will still be in business in its present incarnation in 5 years and at that point, the real pitfalls of their distribution model may start to become obvious to those who sing their praise.

I don't think its about piracy fighting at all. As you wrote, in this aspect, Steam is same utter failure as everything else. What Steam really does is to monopolize gaming. Normally you need distributor only to get your product. With Steam you need distributor actually to USE your product. Salesman wet dream. To make it appear better than it really is, they parade it as "service". Which means they included few, mostly useless "features" like chat and accomplishments.

I agree Steam does more to control the consumer IMO

Steam does not bother me in the slightest, what does bother me is the trend that EVERY publisher requires people to have internet access to play single-player games. It is not limited to just games either.....electronic devices and a variety of software require it now.

Previously my opinion on this was that I'd rather not be forced to use Steam, but I didn't have too much of an issue with it. After this new patch, however, I will never buy another game that requires Steam. I cannot play the game until I've patched it (even though I set it to "do not automatically update"), which means I have to patch it, which means I can't play it anyway because NVSE is completely broken by the patch. Apparently I could have put it into offline mode, but it doesn't work retroactively. I just can't believe this crap. Why won't Steam let me play my own game until I've patched it??

Again, I will NEVER buy another game that requires Steam. Screw you Bethesda.

I am the complete opposite of the anti-Steam minority.

I am almost completely dependent on Steam. I usually don't play games that are not on my Steam account or that I've manually added to the Steam client.

Steam is not useless
As an avid gamer, I have almost 100 games on my Steam account and dozens more on discs. The Steam client keeps my steam games updated which relieves a lot of headache back in the days of manual patching. The in-game browser is indispensable for such an in-depth game such as F:NV because I like to check up on wikis and guides while I play. I also an active participant in the steam community and have over 100 friends on my friends list, which makes connecting with other gamers a fun and rewarding experience.

The Steam client is also full of great features for gamers such as a complete in-program digital store, a news portal for many major gaming sites and community news. I also use Steam as the definitive program to keep track of all my installed games like I do with iTunes for music. Because I have an above average number of games installed (at least 50), I needed a fast, professional client such as Steam to keep them in one place, and the Windows built-in Games Explorer just doesn't cut it.

Mandatory isn't the best way to go, but...
Now, I understand why some people prefer the game comes with no third party clients. There is no reason to install Steam just to play one game and I completely agree. But if you have many games installed, using Steam to organize your games is a breeze. The rewards of Steam increases with use; the more you use Steam, the more enjoyment you will get out of the experience. My first steam games were in the Orange Box, which pissed me immensely having to install Steam. But as my game library grew, I became more and more addict to Steam.

Steam is here to stay
If I still haven't convinced you yet, you are going to have to live with it whether you want it or not. Steam is not going anywhere for a long time and you are going to have to stick with steam or break some laws. The very vocal, very small minority will not convince Bethesda to abandon their primary DRM method in the life of the product (i'd say 10 years), so you are going to learn to love it or leave it. I only intend to help you get more out of the experience, so enjoy the most of what you can. After all, it's the game you're playing, and Steam is still very small part of it.