The Steam cloud save thing is unacceptable, but so far I've avoided it. Other then that Steam hasn't caused me any issues, but I didn't expect any having accepted the positives and negatives of the service a long time ago.

I voted...

1. I'd prefer something else. (Please Specify)
Only one to do so. Ha ha! Here's me specifying that I would like a choice. You can count it as, I would make a choice to not use Steam, but that I don't mind third-party crap appearing during install asking me if I'd like to use the service, because I can then click "No." But all the Steam fans out there can go ahead and click "Yes". If I need to activate a game I don't mind registering with Steam/Bethesda Softworks/Oblivion, I just don't want/like software and services I'm not gonna use on my system. Who does?

If players had a choice about using Steam, maybe over the days since launch those posts about save issues, problems installing from a hard copy etc wouldn't have appeared in the tech support forum. That it has caused problems is indisputable, I'm afraid.

2. Have you used Steam before.
Yes.

3. Is your opinion biased.
No.

I would have liked this. I would have liked it very much if they had made Steam completely optional, (but making it clear that not installing Steam would disable Achievements and ... whatever else it offers). I really had high esteem for the way that FO3 was setup so that once installed you could run it disk-less, and without hassle from GFWL... (but I've since heard that this was an unintentional mistake ).

I would have liked that as well, I would have definitely pre-ordered NV PC CE had Steam been optional. And Beth wouldn't have alienated so much of their fanbase

Every anti piracy system fails miserably, but when people higher up tell you that your game needs to have some kind of DRM, I think that Steam is better than any of the alternatives that are used today. Like Ubisoft's constant internet connection requirement that means you can't even get to your saves if you don't have internet or the server is down. Or GFWL...

Steam actually has advantages too, like extremely cheap deals being offered randomly, but especially at the beginning of the summer and during christmas. Be sure to check the stores in December..

though cheap deals don't matter much if the user doesn't have the connection speed to actually get the games. Still I firmly believe that steam shouldn't have been forced on us for a single player game

I've actually kinda grown to like Steam, in its own way. Far better execution than GFWL. All told, I really prefer Direct2Drive's system - always able to download the game and get keys, no client to have to connect through... but Steam isn't that bad. There's still thriving mod communities and content delivery is streamlined from one place. It is FAR better than each game having its own launch and patch system, and Steam keeps everything up to date without bothering you.

What I totally don't get is actually buying a (PC) physical copy when you have the server and cloud systems there.

Steam is SH*T! I was so excited to get the Collector's Edition today, as normally you do get them a day early, I go on my PC only to find I get punched in the nuts by steam for my troubles, it basically says "GTFO come back later!"

The feeling of having the game you desperatly want to play but with steam holding it hostage is annoying as hell!

If I had ordered it on 360 like I normally do I would be immersed in the awesomeness about now.............FML

I actually liked steam until today. It's easy to use and not very bothersome when not needing it.

However, since the application doesn't let me install and play the game that I have in my hands because it "has not been released" yet, made my dislike grow like a supermutant snorting F.E.V.
Even more because my friends who bought it on a console are playing it right now and I have to wait for 14 more hours...

Regarding the launch lock... is that really a big deal? Is it any different than having to wait until the store opens? It is an arbitrary start time... it isn't a MMO so there's no names to claim or anything. You don't gain anything, you don't lose anything. You're effectively complaining about a few hours when people in some countries have to wait a week. And that isn't something limited to Steam.

In 2 weeks, you won't even remember it.

Hi all..

I am gonna reuse some of my stuff from other threads hope thats ok...

I remember when playing CS before steam came.. when they announced that we now would need this steam to play a simply FPS game with friends I was angry.. infact I was a true hater of Steam (before It was even out) but I must admit that was a mistake.... Steam is very nice and its a good thing for gamers why ? well let me tell you why...

First off. You get good deals with steam (like the orange box etc) this is because steam made gaming digital - (no more hardcopies = less money spent) makes sense...
You also get to download all new demoes and a tons of free games (yes its not a super game you get for free but sometimes they are fun a good example is Age of chivalry)
When my friends are playing a game lets say L4D, I can see they play it and invite/get invited to their game, I can also see what games they own etc..
The achievements system is fun (nothing big but its still there) in other words I can see if a m8 is slacking in AOC and can't even dicatpitate enemies)
The bandwidth of steam is superb.. (I preloaded FNV with 2.8 mb/s) I think thats decent for most people.. and tbh I never downlaoded anything from steam with a lower speed..
I wanna bet most people wont even see they get a patch or update on steam its super smooth and nice...
Again I never had any problems with steam and the fact its a DRM too its nice (trust me there is some ugly and nasty DRMS that force you to stay online all the time etc. and [censored]s up alot..) the bad think about those drms is the fact they are expensive...


I could post some negative stuff aswell sure (there will always be good and bad stuff) but im0 there are much more postive sides then negative..

DLC packets on steam is popular wether thats bad or good well.. thats a matter of taste..

Actaully I played all the way through Fallout 3 without even knowing GFWL was even there, I definately didnt have to wait until the next day to play after I bought it.

No it's not the same. Compare it to buying a car with manual transmission. If you go to the dealership and buy a car. You pay for the car, sit in it, turn the key to start and nothing happens. You expect do drive away but someone says that you can't drive the car because it's not available with manual transmission yet. The fact that you are sitting in a car that actually has a working manual transmission and you've paid for it is completely ignored.

However, your friend that has bought the exact same car, only with an automatic transmission, waves at you smiling as he is drives his car from the lot.

The only difference with both cars is the way you have to operate it.

It's the same here. I can't play the game because it's on a PC where my friends that have consoles are playing it right now. THAT is the point. You expect to drive away/play the game but you can't because of a technical thing that is actually impossible.

Of course I am willing to wait, I set my mind on the release date as soon as I knew it, then again if I have something in my hands that should by all logic work, well, it should work.

Generally Steam only modifies the game executable to make it dependent on the Steam Service so you can't run the game without it... I don't think they modify the game files themselves, they didn't do that for Fallout 3 or Oblivion anyway :shrug:

I'm just speculating though, I don't even have New Vegas yet, but New Vegas does use the same engine and folder structure as F3

Client/server. Currently only really used for MMOs, it was also used for Tribes 2, meeting with disaster (Tribes 1 being popular in the first place because it was so easy to pirate).

Well the fact is.. if you know the car don't have the manual transmission and you have to go for automatic then you have a choice (you know it) its not like you buy the car and find out afterwards... well maybe if you buy a car from home without looking at it or getting any information... (but then its your own fault tbh - allways recheach before you buy stuff even simple stuff as milk in your avg store)

So its pretty simple either deal with it or leave it alone

I never once complained about disc checks, in fact, I'm quite alright with disc checks. I've never once felt that inserting a disc into a computer to play a game is too much trouble, I'd much rather do that than play all my games through Steam actually. And I've played lots of games which don't use Steam but that I've never experienced DRM issues with, these include all Bethesda game's I've played.

And considering that when they decided to use Steam with the game, we got a game breaking bug related to it, I'd say that yes, the decision to use Steam IS a problem. Now, I'm not saying that the blame for this issue rests entirely on Steam, because I've never experienced a similar issue with other Steam games I've played, but we never had this issue at all with Fallout 3, and if they just kept the same setup, we probably wouldn't get it either. So I don't blame Steam, in and of itself, for the problem, but rather an atrocious implementation for it, and while I no it's a horrible thing to say, I hope some people were fired over that debacle. I did not expect this game to be fully bug free upon release, but what we're talking about here goes far beyond reletively minor but annoying bugs. There's no excuse for an issue that has actually ruined many people's save games after they've played for hours to be in a released product we're expected to pay for, and someone should have to take responsibility for it.

And yes, I have used Steam before, and I'd like to have as little to do with it as possible. Too bad we're talking about a game I want to play here and I don't want to let Steam stop me from doing so. I just hope that Bethesda will learn from the problems people had with Steam and not make a requirement with future games. I can't say for certain that my opinion is entirely unbiased, but I don't care, it's still mine, and it's what I'm going to use to judge decisions made by game developers now and in the future.



I never had to deal with Games for Windows Live with Fallout 3 either, I completely ignored its existence and never had any problems for that, and it never messed up anyone's saves either. Considering this, I think I can safely say that I'd happily choose that "garbage" over Steam, at least it was fairly harmless garbage if it's done like in Fallout 3. Besides, you make it sound like Games for Windows Live and Steam are the only options they could have gone with, apparently, you fail to consider that they could have... oh, I don't know, not used either of them? It's not like there aren't any PC games that don't use either "service".

And yes, no DRM is going to stop pirates, which is why developers shouldn't be trying to stop piracy entirely. Instead, what they should be doing is find a method to make pirating the game more troublesome that's also as unobtrusive for paying customers as possible. Because cutting down on piracy isn't going to do much good if the legitimate customers don't want to buy the game either because the copy protection scheme drives them away, and when I think of unobtrusive DRM, Steam is NOT what comes to mind.



Ah, yes, insult people, that's ALWAYS the best way to make a pursuasive argument. Actually, it makes me LESS inclined to like Steam, after all, if you could find a legitimate defense for the decision to use Steam, you wouldn't need to resort to calling others "clueless".



Cheap deals that I never actually use because I'd rather buy physical copies of my game, even if it means paying a little more. Besides, that still doesn't make me agree with the decision to make New Vegas require it, after all, even if I wanted to buy games via Steam, I could still do that if the games I buy physical copies of don't require it. It's not like I've ever said I want Steam to dissappear, I just don't want to be forced to choose between using it and playing the games I want to play.



I can only disagree there, and I'd rather BE bothered with keeping my games up to date, at least then, I can CHOOSE when to patch them. With Steam, all my games automatically update when I connect to the client, whether I want to or not, and I may not know that the patch it's downloading could end up bringing in new bugs, or messing up a modification I have installed until it's too late. It isn't hard to find a patch for a game online. And in any case, you may like Steam, but that's no reason for the game to try to force it on those who don't.



Maybe because I don't like digital distribution? Because I don't, and I don't want to support it because if it keeps succeeding, it will just become more common place. Right now, I can still play 10 year old games if I can get a working copy of the disc, if all our games were distributed digitally, I fear I might not be able to say the same.

No... this is more like a bamboo dealer soaking the years' crop with Aspartame and gasoline then offering it to starving pandas ~what choice do they have?

(Its a fact that I bought 3 Steam games in the last two months... I bought them only because I reasoned that in two months I'd have Steam installed anyway because of New Vegas... I hadn't had Steam installed for years. When I'm done with NV, I'm done with them all; Steam goes, and I'll take the loss of the other three games. :shrug:)

Well, I gonna use some old posts from me:

"First and foremost, Steam/Valve treats me like a minor in Germany. Altough I am over 18 (more 25+), Steam will install the cut German version, if I do not jump through some hops. Why? It is the German Law that minors are not allowed to see cruel things (full ack), but Steam/Valve does not provide any age verification. So, Valve/Steam makes the presumption, that all players in Germany (from German IP) are minors (to save some bucks), even if around 75% are over 18.
Do I need Steam? Not for any game I enjoyed playing in the last century.
Do I like Steam? Not realy, mainly because it does not commit to the European privacy laws (USA privacy laws are a joke), e.g. Steam Statistics can not be disabled
Will I install it? Do I have an option? Actually, I have already installed it for another game and I used it for quite some time and I still do not want it or need it.
Do I like it? Definitly NO and if I had the option, I would not have to.

Well, my addiction to mutants and wasteland will win again and I will have to make some mambo jumbo magic, so that I can play the uncut version."

Even if the positive things are available in America, in Germany this is not the case.

Physical distribution is so 1999.

Apart from Collector's Editions with physical goodies, what's the point of a boxed game anymore?

I think you misunderstand me. In my example I tried to explain that when you go and buy something you expect it to work. If the advertisemant in the, in this case dealership, say For Sale: car, with manual transmission, pay and drive away. You expect to buy the car and drive away.

I bought a game, that was in good supply in the store, went home and expected to be able to play it. Just as I have with all games that I buy. I bought Fallout 3 a few days prior to release and was able to play it without a problem.

If you go to the store and buy a game, any game, don't you expect to install and play it?

Just to make things clear. I'm not really mad about having to wait to play the game. What I am mad about is the fact that I have to wait because I bought the PC version. The console versions that are also for sale atm are actually being played, since there is no such thing as steam saying it hasn't been released on a console. I am mad because I have obtained something legally and are not able to use it. I could have downloaded a pirated version and be playing right now.

Me= honest customer -> not able to play
Pirate -> non paying customer, ergo Thief -> Able to play.


Don't you consider the things in italics to be slightly wrong?

erm.. how can it be less unobtrusive? It doesn't slow down your system, it doesn't install any nasty bits of software that monitor your computer 24/7. You only have to have Steam running to be able to play the game. and no Steam doesn't have to update the game automatically, you can turn it off.

The only DRM I know of that's more unobtrusive is the simple DVD-Check.

Developers need to counter piracy in some way, DRM is that way and it's here to stay whether we like it or not. Right now Steam is by far the best service available, and if you compare it to Ubisoft's draconian new DRM you'll see what I mean.



Actually this is more like offering a well fed panda more bamboo with the condition that the panda will have to wear a miniskirt while eating it. They panda can accept the deal and enjoy the yummy bamboo while wearing a ridiculous skirt or the panda can ignore it, with no real consequences.

Bethesda and Obsidian aren't forcing anyone to play the game, so the real problem lies with the customer.

The feeling of actually owning something? Something to put on a shelve? A back-up?

want me to continue?

I'd prefer it. I'd prefer a physical manual. (FO1's manual was the best I'd ever seen... and still is.)

I'd tolerate Disc checks in lieu of a Steam installation; with some exception I'd tolerate most DRM's over Steam.
Mainly I just loathe online activation of any and all sort. :shrug: Boxed games with a disc that actually installs the game and is then playable are far preferred by me than some crippled installer that relies on an outside server to allow it to work.

Please do.

Valve already said that if the Steam service stops running they will come up with a way to let people play the games they payed for without Steam.



Can you even name one DRM service that uses online activation and is better than Steam? :huh: