Sorry for your slow connection and/or ADD. i was up and running in about 10 minutes on a very modest connection.

Actually it came about out of three things.
1) A way to allow automatic patching.
2) A conflict with a distributor.
3) An attempt to find a better method of DRM.
The fact that it didn't work to stop pirating hasn't stopped people from actually trying new DRM methods.

Though they are the largest, there are several other digital distribution platforms and even some that offer the same functions.
The funny thing is they build it because no-one else wanted to build it for them.

EDIT: I understand those that don't want to have to use it. But exclusivity deals like this have been standard business practices for years now.

I must have had a different Steam because I've had about the exact opposite reaction from Steam. Steam support has been extremely cordial and helpful, even though I do get most of my answer from forums both here and on Steam.

I have been a long time Steam customer and I have extremely positive reaction from their service. In fact, the level of service they have provided is unparalleled in the industry; no other publisher or developer has such a support for their product and their customers. Sure, I sing praises for the service because I based them on facts. Valve is a very successful company with an impeccable record for developing top notch software. They are the present and future of PC gaming and your negative perceptions are far short of consensus.

Steam is also the major player in helping independent developers get exposure for their games, providing unprecedented support for the talented minority and a healthy environment for gaming innovation. Your claims of fallacies in the Steam service are baseless and offensive, without a regard for equitable evaluation or moral responsibility. I suggest you do more research and maintain a healthier attitude before spewing unfounded anger and inaccuracies in a honest discussion.

I hate GFWL.... at least they didn't use that again. I should try to figure out how to back up these patches and stuff so I do not have to download load them every time Vista buggers out and I have to reformat.

EDIT: Through Steam, I also got a small, independent game for like $5 that I already put 60 hours into and enjoyed it a lot. It does have some pluses.

Right-click the game and select Backup Game Files. It will backup the latest version of the game. I would've died without that feature for my TF2, L4D1/2. (in case you didn't know, TF2 patched is about twice the size of vanilla TF2)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Go screw yourself, you hypocritical [censored].

Can you post please some relevant data that that would back up such a claim? Or is everyone who disagree with you minority automatically?

Uh... :huh: Stop flaming yourself?

And yes, Steam updated my game too despite having set it to "Don not automatically update this game". I think that's the first honest bug i've encountered with it :shrug: Oh well, NVSE is already updated so no harm done.

Being labeled an addict, even self labeled, is not necessarily a good thing. Just saying.

Its great that you get use out of all the extra features that Steam has to offer, but they are not for everyone. I have never used a game guide and rarely look at game wikis, even then it's mostly for the better explanation of new and/or interesting game mechanics. I have about 35-40 games currently installed on my machine (the folder size says 172 Gig :shrug: ) plus I have a few dozen more games on disk not currently installed. When I get a hankerin' to play those games I'll install them and play. I may even uninstall some of the games I have, that Games folder is huge! I don't have any issues with how my games are organized in Windows, I have never seen manual updates as a hassle, I don't see any incentive to ever use Steam.

There was a very big court case years ago that should be considered by those thinking that Steam is The Future and will be around forever (because the same thing was said about IBM, Prodigy, AOL, Intel and Microsoft), the case was Netscape vs Microsoft. The crux of the case was that Windows came with Internet Explorer, if someone wanted to use a different web browser they would have to do so manually as the coding in Windows made it (almost) impossible to set any other web browser as the default browser. The result was that Internet Explorer faced actual competition, which meant they needed to improve, and today we have people using Firefox, Chrome and many other web browsers.

Why is this important for Steam? Steams' exclusivity to specific titles is even more insidious.

Imagine for a moment that as part of the use of GFWL for Fallout 3, all gamesas websites had to be coded so that they could only be viewed through Internet Explorer. At the same time Netscape has exclusive contracts for all internet banking plus Amazon. Most retail stores are tied to IE and Chrome has Ebay and all official sports websites. Firefox would never exist because they never got big enough to make a deal with any websites and nobody wanted yet another browser cluttering their system. The result is chaos, the solution is to have all exclusive rights granted to just one (illegal just about everywhere) or to eliminate the exclusive deals altogether. All it would take is some solitary gamer in say FrogJump, TN to file a lawsuit against Steam, if the ruling is that Steam has to decouple themselves from games sold in the State of TN then lawsuits will rapidly follow in states, providences and countries around the world. Steam is only on top because it is the only distributor built on the Exclusive Title house of cards. If they are still around in 10 years they will be a very different company.

Guess I went for impact over clarity...My quote was there to show that the issue I had was completely different to the one he assumed I had. Hence the "hypocrite" bit for saying I've got ADD when he can't even read a hundred word post.

If no one says anything, nothing changes. Therefore, I speak out on this topic.

One thing I CAN see though, is at least it is NOT GFWL......

How do you go on the Vault/ the internet when you have steam. I've always had to exit the game or Ctrl+alt+Delete if it freezes.

It should be noted Steam doesn't have a verification process, never has, and likely never will; the patch obviously was not submitted to Valve until yesterday.

using the steam community feature, one of the things you can bring up is a little browser. Its slow but its better than having to constantly alt tab

Ingame use shift-Tab to go into the Community overlay. Browser is an option near the bottom if I recall correctly.

My bad customer support experience with Valve was in about 2006. I decided not to give them a second chance, a decision I feel is legitimated by the actice criticisms I see of them on gaming forums, as well as the obvious monopolistic trend they have promoted. There are plenty of other digital distribution sources that do not impose on me to the same extent as Steam would.

I am glad to hear that Steam is pleasant and enjoyable for some of you. But, please, that is not a good reason for all of us to have to be part of it. Every new game that is Steam only is another cherry on your cake, and another turd on ours.

I can see only two legitimate reasons for Steam to be mandatory: shrinkage prevention; market domination. The former is debatable, though the latter seems pretty clear.

ADDIT: and one last point, the fact that there are at least some games (Warband is the only one I can think of right now) where Steam is effectively optional, depending on how you purchased it, tells me that there is really no good reason for Valve to impose on publishers or players a "Steam required" agenda, except for Valve trying to dominate the market. Maybe they are helping _some_ independent developers, but they are not helping _all_ of them, and moreover, they are also harming other retailers. I don't think that is necessary, and given it involves imposition on consumers, I question its ethicality, particularly when presented under the beguiling category of "service."

Steam as a delivery service can be easily optional. Steam as a DRM service is probably more complicated. At the minimum it means setting up a secondary DRM service, or going DRM-free.

I also don't recall seeing any mention of Valve "imposing" anything on anyone with regards to a "Steam required agenda". As you mention yourself, they seem fine with having games available on Steam that are also available through other means, and fine with games on Steam using other DRM methods.

NV being Steam only seems to be Bethesda/ZeniMax's choice, not an imposition from Valve.

I'm curious to know the basis on which you think this. Most likely there is no way to confirm or deny if it is publisher choice or Valve imposition for the simple reason that, the contractual agreements are likely private. I suppose a statement by more four or more publishers, two who chose to go Steam-only, and two who did not, all stating in clear unequivocal terms the nature of the decision-process would be pretty clear evidence. In the absence of that, I think it is reasonable to hypothesize that the "decision" to make a particular game Steam-only is one that is at minimum emergent through contractual negotiations in which Valve petitions for Steam-only with rewards for compliance and penalties for noncompliance.

What possible prima facie advantages would a developer or publisher enjoy from a game having only one medium of distribution, and a digital one that could evaporate in short order at that?

On the other hand, Valve stands to benefit tremendously via the mechanism of "brand loyalty" by virtue of each game they distribute which is not distributed via any other channel. A member of Steam is I would guess much more likely to purchase additional games on Steam, and considerably less likely to purchase games via other retail sources, either digital or physical.

My hunch is that Valve negotiates with any prospective publisher they will distribute for in efforts to encourage/cajole/enforce a Steam only agenda. Most likely they attempt to impose penalties on publishers who request/demand/insist on Steam being only one option to activate and maintain a particular games license.

The previous poster's comments about "monopoly" are apt in this regard, and central to my disapproval.

I see nothing wrong with Steam's model EXCEPT, that they apparently attempt to make games Steam only. IMO, if _all_ games available by Steam were also available by other means, and did not ever require a Steam account, there would be no basis to express disapproval about Steam. Those of you who value it and enjoy having your collections from Steam could enjoy yourselves, those of us who do not want to participate in Steam could get the same games via other options = everyone happy; except of course Valve, who knows full well, that additional options of distribution would at minimum weaken the constraints of their brand and at worse could lead to a significant siphoning off of their market share.

AS OUTLINED IN VALVE"S FAQ FOR STEAMWORKS, QUESTION 8



http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/FAQ.php


Your entire point has been invalidated. Please don't resort to conspiracy theories as your argument next time.

It is obvious that they do not require exclusivity, as the Warband example I already cited shows.

But that does not invalidate the argument I just outlined, nor the hypothetical contractual negotiations I described, in which Valve attempts to get exclusivity in many if not all instances.

"Requiring exclusivity" and "seeking to gain" it are not synonymous and Valve could easily, legally, even I suppose ethically state the above quoted on their website, and nonetheless be engaging in precisely the type of business that I outlined in the preceding post, i.e., seeking to gain exclusivity on any titles they distribute. Moreover, "allowing non-exlusivity," and "encouraging" it (as implied by the weasel language "get your game in front of as many people as you can") are also not synonymous. Obviously, at this stage, the single easiest way to "get your game in front of as many people as you can" is for the game to be on Steam; this says nothing about "we encourage you to distribute your game with as many retailers as possible, and are commited to NEVER seek to be the exclusive retailer for any of the titles we sell."

Neither would "rewarding exclusivity" or "penalizing non-exclusivity" be contradictory to the statement "we do not require exclusivity on titles."

I'm not proposing a conspiracy theory. I'm expressing sincere concerns as a consumer about a very serious pattern in gaming culture. For one thing, monopolies are almost never a good thing, and even when they bring benefits, in time those benefits tend to transform into costs for consumers and for producers as well. For another, there seem to be increasing numbers of games that require Steam. These points concern me, and I have, as you see, developed some hypotheses about why these trends have developed, and about the long-term implications of these trends.

I'd be happy to hear these concerns laid to rest, but attempting to discredit me as "angry," "conspiratorial," etc., does not accomplish that any more than singing the praises of Steam does. Steam may be the best thing since sliced bread, but is that a good reason for me to have to be part of it to purchase a license to play Fallout New Vegas? Do the benefits to you other users who do not mind being part of Steam really require that imposition on those of us who do not wish to join?

ADDIT: Moreover, let us consider for a moment point four in the FAQ to which you linked twigg



In short, this suggests that Valve reserves the right to split revenue in a manner more favorable to them if a publisher chooses against Steam exclusivity. That in itself speaks to the real reasons Steam has become so prevalent, while other digital and physical distribution services that simply sell games, and do not require consumers to maintain online activity to make use of their EULAs have lost market share.

In a world without MMOGs Steam would NEVER exist, and it is only the prevalence and normalization of the idea that games are naturally linked to online networking that has facilitated this subtle, but very effective act of domination.

Steam is first and foremost a DRM measure and should be judged in comparison to other DRM solutions.

So comparing it to the likes of GFWL, Uplay, starforce, securom, etc etc, it should be apparent that steam offers the consumer the best alternative. What about older DRM solutions like cdkeys or disk checks? Well cd keys are still used, mostly in conjunction with GFWL and disk checks have been abandoned by most big publishers. The other alternative, one that has been thrown around more in the last few years by some big publishers, is to not release games on the pc at all. Since the piracy rate is so high on the pc, a lot of publishers (and developers) are considering just releasing their games on just consoles, where the closed nature makes it much easier to prevent and punish piracy.

I may have forgot some DRM alternatives, but given the choices we currently have, wouldn't you prefer steam as the lesser evil over something like Uplay or no game at all?

EDIT: Also I'd like to apologize for the hostility in my last post. Regardless of whether or not I agree with your opinion or whether I think your opinion has merit it doesn't excuse me for acting like an ass.

You type a lot.

Regardless of whether Valve offers incentives for going Steam only, there is ample evidence (including their FAQ) that it is not a requirement. Therefore, not imposed. Therefore, ultimately Bethesda/ZeniMax's decision. To say otherwise would be to say that Dead Money being an Xbox 360 exclusive is entirely Microsoft's decision.

Even without the possibility of financial incentives from Valve (unconfirmed, of course), I would suspect that automatic updates and ensuring all your customers are patched to the latest version is a huge draw for companies as it would (normally) cut down drastically on tech support. The nearly idiot-proof self-install through Steam helps as well. I'm not sure if Beth benefits from this, given their patches sometimes cause as many problems as they solve, but for most companies auto-patching of as many customers as possible would be a big benefit.

I am not posting this to argue with anyone, nor am I interested in winning anyone to see my point of view. I will giv my two cents worth on what I think of requiring the having to use Steam in order to play the game. It stinks.

I was turned onto Fallout 3 by a buddy of mine when we were preparing for deployment. He gave me the disk and I installed it onto my laptop. I quickly became addicted to it. When I returned from Iraq, I wanted to get the GOTY Edition and found it available for download on Steam. I purchased it and downloaded the game through the Steam client. The gaming difference between the disk version of Fallout 3 and the GOTY Edition on Steam were night and day. I remembering wasting away hours of monotonous downtime with glitch free gaming in Iraq. On Steam, I encountered countless crashes and game freezes. I vowed never to purchase anything through Steam ever again. Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that I had to install FONV via Steam. Once again, I found myself experiencing crashes and game freezes. The new patch has virtually eliminated the game freezes for me, but it still continues to crash to desktop on a regular basis.

I don't like the forced patching of the game either. It is my rig... I bought it, I paid for it, I insist complete control over it. Game producers have exclusive copyrights over the games they turn out, but that does not entitle them to do what ever they wish once that game is on MY computer. Once I paid the $59.00+ for the game and install it onto my rig, that's it, the game belongs to me so long as I don't infringe upon or violate the Bethesda/Obsidian copyright.

For those of you that like Steam for its chat features and so forth, more power to you. I am glad to see that there is a gaming client like Steam that makes you happy. Personally, I can't understand the need to chat with friends while playing a single player game like Fallout, but that is just me. It works when you are in multiplayer games, particularly when you are on a client that allows for voice communication, such as Blizzard's Battlenet servers. On top of that, it makes no sense for Bethesda/Obsidian to exclusively use a gaming client like Steam when they encourage modding of their game. Windows Live, XBox Live, and Steam do not allow for modding. You have to play exclusively offline in order to play a modded game, thus rendering some of the features of Steam completely irrelevant.

This is utterly and completely wrong.

Completely false, Steam has cooperated with modders in the past to allow FOSE work on people's computers. I am running New Vegas through the fallout mod manager and it runs like a champ, granted i'm not running anything besides some cosmetic enhancements.

As far as the rest of your argument goes I can respect your sentiment. I don't think its a huge issue personally, but it is just that - a personal preference when it comes to steam. Especially when it comes to your own money.

Edit: damn someone is quick :ninja:

Edit: LOL @ all the posts aimed at Wardminator.